Slashdot Mirror


Wired on Autism in the Valley

digaman writes: "The December issue of Wired magazine contains an article of mine on what appears to be an upsurge in autism among the children of programmers and engineers in Silicon Valley: "The Geek Syndrome." A complicated issue, explored in depth. I hear the California Department of Developmental Services is launching a research project to investigate the questions raised in the article."

861 comments

  1. I am not autistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I rock back and forth compulsivly.

    :p

    1. Re:I am not autistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rocking is for exercise, right?

  2. uh oh by prockcore · · Score: 4, Funny

    hmm.. I wonder why that is... (as I read the article with my laptop in my lap)

    1. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they don't link it to caffine or my kids will be skrewed.

    2. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hope they don't link it to caffine or my kids will be skrewed.


      and ThinkGeek would be class action sued!

      How rude.
    3. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And all because of our screwed-up brood.

      Dude...

    4. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K-Mart sucks!

  3. The damage: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Early reports indicate that the children of programmers can often spout only gibberish phrases. Often overheard are such incomprehensible drivel as "All your base are belong to us", "W00t", and "3y3 0wNz j00!"


    It is obvious that these phrases indicate a mild degree of mental retardation in these children, who often exhibit antisocial behavior and a tendency to do incredibly stupid things, like confusing numbers with letters, touching lit fires, and launching DDoS attacks from home.


    The Department of Developmental Services has yet to comment, and for some reason their web site is down.

    1. Re:The damage: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Early reports indicate that the children of programmers can often spout only gibberish phrases.

      And it's not just the children.

      Perhaps the best demonstration of the spreading of this debilitating disease to the adult population as well can be seen at a popular geek weblog called Slashdot.

      It's sad to observe how both the articles and the ensuing discussion are mostly incomprehensible gibberish like you mentioned.

  4. The obvious solution... by nyquist_theorem · · Score: 2

    ...is for future-minded silicon valley tech firms to encourage their engineers and techie-types to breed with those as intellectually and physically dissimilar to themselves as possible. Not so far out, really - folks like Ric Ocasek, Billy Bob Thornton, and Lyle Lovett have been practicing such things for years.

    --
    -- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." (Charles Darwin)
    1. Re:The obvious solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..........And don't forget Billy Joel/Christy Brinkley

  5. ADD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we all know true coder geeks all have some form of ADD, this is nothing new, just worse

    1. Re:ADD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I never really got into ADD, although I did play the "Basic Set" of Dungeons & Dragons.

  6. read the article by RestiffBard · · Score: 2

    all i can say is that its a damn interesting article. a little spooky. I just hope its not true. I'd hate to think that the mating of two smart people produces a disabled person. It's like a planned obsolescence in the intelligence of the species.

    --
    - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    1. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who says it's a diability? I could see where this kind of behavior, while kind of unsettling, has done more good for our society than bad. Perhaps it's an evolutionary step in a better direction...?

    2. Re:read the article by x136 · · Score: 2
      I agree, this is very interesting, I'll have to read the whole thing some time. (I've got four computers in front of me, stereo is on, TV is on, and it's 1:30am. I can't pay attention to anything. :)) But I've gotta say -
      It's like a planned obsolescence in the intelligence of the species.
      - that is one of the creepiest things I've heard in quite a while...
      --
      SIGFEH
    3. Re:read the article by vrmlknight · · Score: 1

      I agree this could end up being very bad and it is very freeky. I always tried to blow off people that told be always being around computers would be bad now though I'm re thinking using my laptop and having a PDA on my hip and cell phone and at work (12 hrs a day) 6 desktops and 12 monitors I think my kids will be screwed

      --
      This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
    4. Re:read the article by poptix_work · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Absolutely, company hierarchies are stupid and wasteful (micromanagement), so is trying to read 'body language', I myself prefer the WYSIWYG, approach.. It's so much simpler to just say what you mean to people, no guessing games, no fights later (ie, the typical 'I didn't actually MEAN that, you should have known better!' behavior exhibited by wifes/girlfriends).

      I prefer to not deal with people, and I've believed for a long time that the human raced is doomed to become extinct from simple stupidity. While it's kind of spooky that the descriptions in the article hit very close to home, I actually found it reassuring that large amounts of intelligent people who don't display or recognize the BS are spawning.

      Let the stupid people's genes die, long live the geeks IMO.

      --
      Just because you disagree doesn't make it offtopic or flamebait.
    5. Re:read the article by zmooc · · Score: 1

      It doesn't say that they necessarily produce a disabled person; only a few are disabled and there also are some extremely bright ones among them. Consider this evolution. Only the bright survive.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    6. Re:read the article by fatphil · · Score: 3, Informative

      "It's like a planned obsolescence in the intelligence of the species."
      Good observation, nicely worded too!

      You mustn't forget intellectuals' breeding patterns anyway. Intellectuals breed with negative population growth. (i.e. 2 intellectuals have 2.0 children on average). i.e. Intellectuals are destined to become outnumbered anyway. (However, that doesn't mean that they won't be a dominating minority - the majority of South Africans were black, the dominant minority white, for example).

      However I'm not convinced, from reading the article, that the thing is hugely genetic anyway. I think that, as always, the socialisation that the children get in the first few years of life governs how schizophrenic (i.e. detached) the child will develop. Maybe the intellectual parents _nurture_ detached children.
      (i.e. it is more like self-inflicting obselescence.)

      FatPhil

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    7. Re:read the article by ender81b · · Score: 1

      A little spooky to say the least. I just realized that a cousin of mine is autistic and my aunt is a math prof. and my uncle is a retired NASA engineer. The weird thing is though is that she has an identical twin who is perfectly normal.

      Oh as for the planned obsolescence of the species? Read Larry Niven's short story The Locust's - all of a sudden the world's children start being born as Neandrathal's; a way for nature to correct the imbalances that humanity has caused. Spooky.

    8. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that being that not only the bright survive. In fact, on the whole (autists aside), the stupid breed at a much faster rate than the "bright".

    9. Re:read the article by uebernewby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed. The most obvious factor at work here isn't radiation or bad genes, it's both parents working ridiculously long hours and leaving the children to raise themselves. For the past ten, twenty years, there's been an upsurge in "psychological disorders" children are supposed to suffer from that, to my mind, aren't disorders at all, just fancy names given to bad upbringing.

      ADHD=spoilt brat

      PDD-NOS ("mild form of autism") = loner

      I've recently looked into this stuff together with my g/f, who is a secondary school teacher in a thinly populated area of the Netherlands (more like Montana than Silicon Valley), and we both felt that the criteria used to diagnose so many children these days with "psychological disorders" are extremely vague, appliccable in a whole slew of different situations (tends to be an indication of bad science) and, worst of all, there's a striking similarity between purportedly "pathological" behavior and "healthy" behavior.

      Now in a situation where parents actually have time to spend on bringing up their children, such tendencies usually get checked in such a degree that the child may be a loner or a very chaotic person, but at least he'll be aware that in order to function within his society, there are some situations in which it's advantageous to conform somewhat. If, on the other hand, both parents work 9 to 9 in a cubicle farm, rarely have dinner with the kids and leave upbringing to school (teachers don't have time to raise 30 kids all at once), television, books, computer games, the internet, what have you, such tendencies will run unchecked, resulting in society, parents, doctors and overworked school teachers screaming "ADHD!" or "autism!" or what have you.

      It's a problem that's not unique to Silicon Valley, it happens everywhere, but given the nature of Sillicon Valley society, it's not surprising that the problem is most apparent there. I'll guarantee, however, that it'll be a problem in other parts of the western world as well, and I'm very curious to see what it'll do to the fabric of society in years to come, when all these autists/ADHD/whatever kids grow up and start assuming positions of power and responsabilities.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    10. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it sounds right on.
      ubergeek + ubergeek = ubergeek offspring.
      Nature wants to avoid such specialization in our species (think of genetics and those punnet squares).
      If your SO is a nerd too, I'd be worried. I've got a social worker SO, almost opposite sides of the coin. Thats what nature wants to encourage...

    11. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with your statements is that many people brought up in happy, loving families also have Autism or Asperger's syndrome (I know this because I am an example of this).

      In fact, if you read the article, it actually refutes your claims, and provides comprehensive evidence that Autism and Asperger's syndrome are genetically based. It is dangerous and irrational to blame parents for something that has been proven (almost conclusively) to be a genetic disorder.

      (Posting AC because I have already moderated).

    12. Re:read the article by uebernewby · · Score: 2

      Neither autism nor asperger's syndrome have been proven to be genetic disorders *at all*.

      And I wasn't talking about happy or loving, but about spending time on your kids, a lot of it, to guide them into understanding and internalizing what constitutes socially acceptable behavior. Very few parents have the time to do this nowadays, and I'd guess this holds true especially in Silicon Valley.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    13. Re:read the article by SnapShot · · Score: 1
      I'd hate to think that the mating of two smart people produces a disabled person.

      How about a slightly different hypothesis. "Smart" parents are more likely to read worrisome news articles and apply the symptoms described to their children. Little Suzy is having trouble fitting in at school. Option one: some kids have trouble fitting in at times and fit in at other times. Option two: "Oh My GOD! Little Suzy has caught the Autism. Lets get some highly paid specialists to work on this."

      This is OBVIOUSLY not the only answer. There are real diseases in this would that call out for understanding and treatment. However, I'm willing to bet that some of this "massive rise" in cases is related to the over-protectiveness of parents and (to be very cynical) the ability of those educated parents to pay for expensive specialists.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    14. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is far more likely that Asperger's and Autism are based primarily on genetic traits than on environmental ones (this is discussed at length in the article).

      I have Aspergers, and my family was a stereotypical Nuclear family. My mum stayed home and looked after us kids, and definitely taught us social skills. But the fact is that I have Asperger's, and always have.

      My Mum's insistence on teaching me social skills despite my problems (which weren't diagnosed until recently) has helped me cope with the syndrome, but the fact is that I still suffer from the syndrome's problems: I have to consciously force myself to stop rocking backwards and forwards, I have to concentrate *very* hard to pick up things such as sarcasm, I have problems picking up non-verbal cues, I detest any disruption to routines, I have problems making eye-contact with people... the list of problems that I face is long, and I'm sure that these are not due in any way to the way my parents raised me, and in fact I would be quite offended if somebody stated that.

      (Posting AC because I have already moderated).

    15. Re:read the article by sholden · · Score: 0, Troll
      Neither autism nor asperger's syndrome have been proven to be genetic disorders *at all*.

      If one identical twin has autism there is a 75% chance the other does too.

      If one fraternal twin has autism there is a 3% chance the other does too (which is still much higher than the rate of autism in the general community).

      A large number of people with chomosomal abnormalities are also diagnosed with autism.

      All of this is evidence for a genetic component. The fact that the identical twin rate isn't 100% means it is not entirely explained by genetics. But genetics almost certainly plays a large role.

      Claiming autism hasn't been 'proven' to be a genetic disorder '*at all*' is a bit far fetched. There is large amounts of evidence. It is not entirely genetic, but it almost certainly plays a part.

    16. Re:read the article by teromajusa · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm raising an autistic son and I know more about the subject than you ever will. If you watched the emergence of autism in a one year old child (yes sometimes its apparent much earlier than 2), the fundamental differences in thinking that are evidenced by his behavior, you would know how wrong your assumptions are.

      PDD-NOS is not, BTW, a mild form of autism. NOS stands for Not Otherwise Specified, and it is a category of autism used for when symptoms do not fit uniformly into Aspergers or classic Autism.

      BTW, in regard to ADHD, children with ADHD frequently show marked improvement (better concentration, better haved) when given Ritalin, which in other children acts as a stimulant. There is very good evidence that there is a neological disorder involved, not just "spoilt brats".

      Uninformed opinion is very destructive to both people and families suffering from both these diseases. Please realize that while you and your girlfriend may have discussed this for a half an hour or so, others have spent their lives researching it, and their opinion, backed by scientific research, are likely to be a bit more accurate than your theorizing.

    17. Re:read the article by uebernewby · · Score: 2

      I'm not "blaming" anyone, just pointing out that in a lot of cases (esp. Silicon Valley, as discussed in the article), lack of parent involvement in the upbringing of their kids is the most obvious culprit.

      I'm also not saying there isn't anything wrong with kids who manifest pathological behavior while there's nothing wrong with them neurologically. However, a lot of these psychological pathologies are very difficult to diagnose accurately (obvious, given the fact that psychology is still a very vague and poorly defined field) and there's a lot of quack psychologists out there who are keen to slap labels on kids that are "difficult" to deal with so that both the psychologist and the parents can feel satisfied: the problem is given a name, the manifestations of the problem can be checked (with Ritalin, for example) while the *cause* remains unknown and untreated.

      Also, you shouldn't underestimate the impact of peers: your mom can teach you all sorts of social skills, but if you go out into an environment where no one else possesses these skills or where it's at least "ok" not to have these skills, it's not going to do you a lot of good.

      As regards Asperger's syndrome: modern western society actually *encourages* monomania, focussing on developing a skill (especially hacking) while ignoring your environment is seen as somewhat good. It's somewhat acceptable, and it's not the biggest problem in the world if your child spends an inordinate amount of time doing something he loves doing. You'll find, however, that in collectivist societies, such as in Asia, ignoring your social obligations is very much frowned upon.

      What I'm curious about, however, and excuse me if this is getting to personal: do you have problems with *all* forms of social interactions or just complex ones, such as sarcasm? As I understand it, "true" autists (the neurological cases) have trouble even with basic emotions such as sadness or anger. It would seem to me that basic emotions and social skills (recognising basic emotions in others) are genetically programmed, while the more complex ones are icing on the cake, so to speak, that are taught.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    18. Re:read the article by moheeb · · Score: 1

      I know a lot of non-bright people that have survived.

    19. Re:read the article by uebernewby · · Score: 2

      I meant no disrespect to people dealing with *real* cases, I was talking about the increasing tendency to slap "diseased" labels on spoilt brats and loners. I haven't said that there is no such thing as autism at all, it's a serious neurological condition (I happen to know this because I've looked into it for more than a mere "half hour").

      PDD-NOS is defined as a condition where the patient exhibits *some* of the traits of classic autism, but not all. You will, perhaps, agree with me that this makes it a rather questionable diagnosis: run through the checklist and you'll pretty soon be labelling yourself "a mild autist".

      It's *this* what I'm talking about, not real autism, such as the autism your son has.

      The same with ADHD: *some* kids do have a condition where they benefit from Ritalin, but nowadays every spoilt brat gets diagnosed with ADHD and given Ritalin to make him manageable. I believe you are mistaken if you say that in healthy kids Ritalin acts as a stimulant, IIRC, this is the case with amphetamines: it used to be that hyperactive kids were given Dexedrine (!), it would calm them down, while healthy adults would get all hyper on it. (wasn't there some sort of age thing as well?).

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    20. Re:read the article by hizzoyt · · Score: 1

      I happen to know that you can spend every second of every day with an autistic child and it wouldn't "fix" or "prevent" any type of autism. I know this because my mother was very close to me while I was growing up, and she is now doing the same for my 7 year old autistic brother. There are probably some cases of mis-diagnosis of ADD and ADHD, but you really can't make generalized assumptions about the disorders until you take a look at it first hand. Become an autistic child's friend and learn something about the disease before you try to impress your friends by saying that a bad upbringing encourages such a disorder. Just about very day I meet people ignorant to the subject (not unlike yourself) that have some kind of "remedy" or otherwise "solution" to the problem. Someone telling me my little brother should "get his ass whipped real good" does absolutely nothing but enrage me. Now, run along child, and go read a Temple Grandin book and become enlightened.

    21. Re:read the article by uebernewby · · Score: 2

      Somehow, it seems that when I say "lots of spoilt brats get labelled ADHD and loners get labelled autists" lots of people misread this to mean "every ADHD-case is a spoilt brat and autists are simply loners". The point, once again, is that there *are* genuine cases, but there's also a *lot* of cases where "disease" labels are slapped on kids just to define away the real problem (lousy social environment/upbringing). Ask anyone who works in education. There's just too many ADHD-kids/"mild autists"/dyslexics/etc running around today to make it believable that they *all* have a neurological condition. At the same time, it's a *fact* that many parents do a lousy job teaching their children moral and social values, partly because they simply work too much. All I'm saying is that this is a much more plausible cause for such an increase in pathological *behavior* in kids. So people who deal with *real* autists, ADHD-kids, dyslexics, what have you, I'm *not* *talking* *about* *you*.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    22. Re:read the article by teromajusa · · Score: 1

      As my son has gotten older, his autism is clearly recognizable and no one questions the diagnosis. But it was extremely difficult in earlier days when his symptoms were less apparent to outsiders. Friends and family questioned the diagnosis and the treatment we were trying to get for our son. Some felt that we were siding with doctors against our child, or that we were just not appreciating our child's unique personality and were trying to make him conform. These things prey on the hopes and guilt on the parent and increase the burden tremendously.

      I wont deny the possiblity of overdiagnosis. However, I think that people should really withhold judgement unless they know all the facts, as the damage that careless assumptions can make is profound.

      BTW, re. Ritalin (Methylphenidate):

      Methylphenidate is a central nervous system (CNS) stimulant. It has effects similar to, but more potent than, caffeine and less potent than amphetamines. It has a notably calming effect on hyperactive children and a "focusing" effect on those with ADHD.

      http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/ritalin.html

    23. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ADHD=spoilt brat

      PDD-NOS ("mild form of autism") = loner

      People who have SlashdotID < 200000 && still don't understand the difference between an equality and an assignment operator == should pick a career other than programming.

    24. Re:read the article by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      *2* people were confused. The rest of us don't take everything so darned personally. We understand that the good ol' USA has recently started trying to blame every problem that anyone could have on possibly real conditions. That shifting of blame by calling everything an "illness" and broadening the criteria so that every lazy parent can call their undiciplined kid "ADHD victim" dilutes the seriousness of the actual disease (if it exists) and causes people who actually have problems to take everything personally.

      I know people with kids that are labeled as suffering from "ADHD". I'm not an expert. I do know, however, that I learned to behave from my parents. I also know several parents who refuse to spank or even say "no" to their kids - who end up having crappy behaviour. Maybe there really are ADHD and similar problems - but ubernewby's probably right when he says that it's probably misdiagnosed more often than not.

    25. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been saying that for ages. And even when the equality operator is being used, all it does is ask the question. Unless you know the return value from the expression it's a meaningless assertion to use ==.

    26. Re:read the article by spiro_killglance · · Score: 2


      Actually, Mating of highly inteligent people,
      or for that matter tall people typically
      spawn children nearer to the norm than themselves.

    27. Re:read the article by uebernewby · · Score: 2

      Maybe I'm not a programmer.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    28. Re:read the article by zmooc · · Score: 1

      True...true...social security and health care cripple evolution in a really bad way. I wonder what its consequences are in a century or so. But maybe by then half of us has been killed or something and evolution can do its job again... Either way: it's not going to be nice.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    29. Re:read the article by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Good post, I was so angered by that idiots staement I couldn't even think clear enough to make a coherant post.
      My son was diagnose with autism, but fortunately it is a form of speech apraxia that led to some symptoms of autism.
      Even with this we ran into people who said "he's fine, I no so-so didn't talk until they where over three", and the famous "You shouldn't trust doctors so much and his speech will develop on its own".

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    30. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd tell those fucking monks to install XP and be happy. *Very* happy.

    31. Re:read the article by powerbarr · · Score: 1

      In some ways autism reminds me to a lower level of the kids in Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke. Wonder if he was onto something.

    32. Re:read the article by hizzoyt · · Score: 1

      I guess I just don't understand what you're arguing about. Maybe you're just arguing to be arguing. Wow, here's a slashdot article that I can argue with people about.

      My point that you've missed is that you are making generalized statements about something in which you are ignorant, and making others believe that you have something to back up your statements. If you're *not* *talking* *about* *me*, then who are you talking about? Are you talking about other people with ADHD diagnosed children? Because I could find some other people with ADHD diagnosed children and tell them that you're conjuring assumptions... And then you'd only say *I'm* *not* *talking* *about* *you* *either*.

      Ask yourself, do you know of any real life examples for which your argument holds true?

    33. Re:read the article by RestiffBard · · Score: 1

      I never intended to offend anyone and i was worried that i might have (if i did I apologize) but the fact that its genetic does not mean that it can't have the effect i mention. based on the explosion of autism and aspergers and sub-autism (to coin a phrase) amongst the families of our brightest and often most eccentric (cause I can't think of a better word) gives one pause to worry.

      again, I never intended to insult anyone. I myself after reading the article began to think that I might fit in that sub autism category.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    34. Re:read the article by Hydrogenoid · · Score: 1

      >I'd hate to think that the mating of two smart people produces a disabled person. It's like a planned obsolescence in the intelligence of the species.

      Actually, it seems rather similar to falciform anaemia, (well, in a way, the genetics of the latter seems simpler) in that that a trait useful for the parents (better resistance to paludism in one case, better jobs in the other) can produce diseased children if both parents transmit the "wrong" genes.
      And yet, falciform anaemia is really common in regions where paludism strikes.

    35. Re:read the article by blif · · Score: 1
      >BTW, in regard to ADHD, children with ADHD
      >frequently show marked improvement (better)
      >concentration, better haved) when given Ritalin,
      >which in other children acts as a stimulant.
      >There is very good evidence that there is a
      >neological disorder involved, not just "spoilt brats".

      I think the inference you are making is that if a behavioral condition responds to a drug, the condition must be congenital. I believe that this a false, though common conclusion. The obvious parallel is treating an anthrax infection with antibiotics. You aren't born with the anthrax infection, yet it is correctable with a drug. A behavioral example would be "failure to thrive", where studies have shown that this dramatic physical condition (which seems to me to be depression in the very young) is caused by environmental factors. I guess what I'm saying, is that environmental conditions can change your brain chemistry (just as can drugs like ritalin).

      BTW, I think everyone is clear that there is huge difference b/n full blown autism and the behavior described in the Wired article. Autism shows up very early in life, it is very easy to diagnose, even by a layperson, and it has been shown clearly to be not caused by upbringing.

      To me it is obvious that the huge growth in ADD/ADHD is because of changes in children's environments (too much tv, too many hyperactive tv shows, not enough play outdoors, not enough time with parents etc.), but that's just my opinion.

    36. Re:read the article by TrinSF · · Score: 1, Informative
      Another problem with your comments is that you assume two working parents. Actually, in the Valley, that's not as likely as you might imagine. Even when two parents start out with careers, there's a real move here to have one or both parents stay home.

      It's more likely to see parents with flexible hours, or one parent who left a job to raise the children. Additionally, the parents tend to be much older -- mid-40's isn't uncommon. These children also aren't in 30-child classrooms; they're in private schools (because almost everyone here who can afford it is in private school) with much smaller class sizes.

      In short, it's clear from your comments that you're not familar with the reality of families in the Silicon Valley. While I don't necessarily approve of some of the excesses here, there's a much higher percentage of stay-at-home parents here than in many other places in the US.

    37. Re:read the article by markmoss · · Score: 2

      Ritalin _is_ a variety of amphetamine, and it is a stimulant. Dexedrine is also sometimes used for ADHD, if there's a bad reaction to Ritalin. Maybe they do have a paradoxical "calming" effect on true ADHD, but stimulants can help normal people with concentration, too. In college, every time semester exams approached, there'd be a big underground market in amphetamine capsules. (Bennies??? It's been a long time for me.) It evidently _did_ work to some extent, not well enough for some lazy bastard compete for B's with anyone of normal intelligence who had paid attention & did the homework throughout the semester, but enough to keep too many lazy bastards from flunking out...

      I really was hyperactive, and Ritalin really worked. Once the dosages were worked out, I only put about 10% of my effort into torturing the teacher, and got a whole lot more of the school work done. (We still drove the sixth grade teacher into a nervous breakdown, but there were two other boys that were also smarter than her, and they weren't on drugs...)

      The trouble is, (1) ADHD is a rather nebulous syndrome, and (2) after seeing the effect of Ritalin on kids like me, teachers want to give it to the rest of the troublemakers too, and for a low-competence teacher that's going to include every normal boy in the class. So the school either persuades the parents or gets a court order to send the kid to a psychologist favored by the school -- that is, one who will recommend Ritalin for damn near anyone. (Psychologists aren't MD's, so they can only "recommend" drugs.) And based on that recommendation, the school can get a court to order the parents to take the kid to a pediatrician and get a prescription for Ritalin. And then -- see how much better the kid is doing at school, the prescription must be right! The problem here is, normal kids would quite likely also show a _temporary_ improvement in school work from amphetamines, but there are plenty of long term dangers...

      "Diagnosis by prescription" is pretty common in psychological treatment, mainly because they have many conditions which are thought to be due to chemical imbalances and potentially correctable by medication, but hardly any tests to actually detect those imbalances. So the shrinks are pretty much in the position of a 19th century MD with a chest full of more or less effective herbs and chemicals, and no blood tests or x-rays to help determine what the disease really is. So you try something, and if it makes the patient feel better, you give them more. This was pretty effective at determining the right use of castor oil, but it got to be dangerous when opium and cocaine became available; those things make _anyone_ feel good for a while...

      One other note, there are two sorts of head doctor; psychologists are PHD's, while psychiatrists are MD's with additional psychological training. (I know of one that actually takes a shift in the emergency room now and then, to keep his medical skills from getting rusty.) So if the psychiatrist thinks you need Ritalin, or an anti-psychotic, he can write the prescription himself. But in my experience, the psychiatrists are less likely to call for drugs -- maybe it's that they are taking responsibility themselves instead of splitting it with whatever family practitioner gets dragged in to write the prescriptions for the psychologist...

    38. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Of course, twins usually grow up in the same house, and identical twins are identically pretty (or ugly). This means that it is at least as likely that the way that parents and strangers interact with a child could be at least as important as genetics.

      Perhaps the children of geeks are removed from the world because their parents are too busy playing Everquest to talk to their babies.

      Not blaming the parents here, just pointing out that the parent did not provide enough data to indicate a definate genetic link.

      As for the chomosomal abnormalites, autism could be a common misdiagnosis among those people.

    39. Re:read the article by teromajusa · · Score: 1

      You're right, the causes are unclear. Far too unclear for your concluding paragraph:

      "To me it is obvious that the huge growth in ADD/ADHD is because of changes in children's environments (too much tv, too many hyperactive tv shows, not enough play outdoors, not enough time with parents etc.)"

    40. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Overdiagnosis is not just a possibility, is a fact of life. My father is one of the leading psychologists in the state, and he spends *most* of his time taking patients off anti-axiety and anti-depression medications that were prescribed by general practice doctors who failed to prescribe tests for a proper diagnosis of the patients adrenal and endochronological systems.

      Most kids called "ADD" or "hyperactive" should at least have a glucose tollerance test, because they are probably hypoglycimic. Also, it is normal for young boys to seem "wild" and "out of control" during certain phases of their development. Only a good speciallist in child psychology should make the determination that a kid is, in fact, "hyperactive", and even then I would seek a second opinion.

      Riralin, Prosac, and blood pressure medications are also routinely prescribed to people without looking for causes, when their axiety and high blood pressure may be the result of hyperthyroid, an easy thing to test for, if you bother to look.

    41. Re:read the article by foxwitt · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with your statement about how vague many of the criteria for these diagnosis are. I've talked about this with my father who has been a public schoolteacher in a rural area of the Midwest for more than 30 years. He's observed (non-scientifically, to qualify this, just his observations) a correlation between what the hot psychological problem at the time is, and how many students in the district have them. When ADD was being talked about a lot, they had a huge upswing in the number of kids who had ADD.

      I also have to say that a lot of this, not all, but a lot of this smacks of parents who don't want to take responsibility for raising little hellions. My kid's not bad, he has a disorder, so you can't punish him for cursing at the teachers and disrupting classes. I believe that there are a lot of kids who have real problems, but vague diagnosis, particularly like those mentioned in the article, where the syndrome has various symptoms, only a few of which need be present to make a diagnosis, open the door for diagnosis of people who don't have the disorder at all.

      --
      Today our lesson will be Chapter 1 of Elementary Necromancy: Proper Use of a Shovel.
    42. Re:read the article by aozilla · · Score: 2

      In fact, if you read the article, it actually refutes your claims, and provides comprehensive evidence that Autism and Asperger's syndrome are genetically based.


      Even if Autism and Asperger's syndrome are genetically based, upbringing is still going to increase the diagnosis of Autism and Asperger's.


      Geeks tend to be wealthy, and therefore are more able to afford psychiatric evaluation for their young children. They also tend to have good mental health plans. Also, bad parenting can mild to medium case much more pronounced, and may contribute to misdiagnosis. Also, geeks tend to want answers for things. Where a non-geek might just think his/her child is a bit anti-social, and punish the child (that's basically what my non-geek parents did), a geek is more likely to look it up on the internet, recognize the symptoms, and take the kid to a psychiatrist.

      --
      ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
    43. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's like a planned
      > obsolescence in the intelligence of the species.
      Not entirely unprecedented. Sickle cell anemia is another disease that conveys an advantage (resistance to malaria) in the heterozygous form. In the homozygous form it is lethal.
      More appropriately: think of lefthandedness. Very impractical in a right handed world. Still, look at a left handed tennis player and understand the competitive advantage a sprinkling of lefthanders affords a population.

    44. Re:read the article by cweber · · Score: 1

      And it's not just the parents who work too long and too hard. We know a family with a stay-home mom and pastor dad who's kid's unchecked bad behavior is getting out of hand. The mother is simply unwilling to really deal with the kid (and even admits to this), and was relieved when the behavior was finally labelled as ADH by some willing psycho-flack. Now there's a condition and she can resist taking responsibility even more.

      I am not saying that the kid is perfectly normal, but taking care of him, including firmly and kindly guiding him towards acceptable forms of behavior, would have alleviated half the trouble. It just takes time, resolve and strength.

    45. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Overdiagnosis is not just a possibility, is a fact of life. My father is one of the leading psychologists in the state, and he spends *most* of his time taking patients off anti-axiety and anti-depression.

      Perhaps things are different in the United States. In Canada, psychologists are _NOT_ doctors, and have no training or knowledge of medication. Nor are they allowed to prescribe or halt medication. Only a psychiatrist (who is a trained medical doctor) is trained in this, and can start/stop medication. Psychiatrists tend to have a better idea if a person's problem is due to chemical imbalances, psychological problems or physiological problems, and will send them off to a psychologist or other doctor if necessary. Psychologists, having no medical training, see most problems as psychological, and will use psychological methods, sometimes to the detriment of the patient. (of course, if your father is a good psychologist, maybe he knows all this stuff, but the average psychologist doesn't).

    46. Re:read the article by casey_66 · · Score: 1

      The problem of your argument is that you seem to assume that autists actually care to function in society. The fact is that most don't seem to care. People like Dr. Grandin are rare and she says that she only desires to function in society so far to do as she likes. I don't know how things are in the Netherlands but I do know all my contact with Autists clearly shows that the biggest obstacle they face is their disinterest in the rest of the world of people. In other words, their biggest problem is the fact that they are autistic. If putting kids in daycare or aftercare created autism then I do believe the national average would be a LOT higher than it is. Aftercare is not wholly new here. Nor is it a particularly American phenomenon. One of the striking stats about autism is that it occurs equally among the economic and privelege classes. It happens to rich, poor, working and professional classes, educated and uneducated parents alike. The very fact that you equate Autism with ADHD suggests that you are not very familiar with what Autism really is. The behavior of an autist or even an "aspy" is quite different from "bratty" behavior. If you saw a kid sitting in the middle of a store flapping his hands and hooting into his elbow you would think he was a brat whos parents weren't spending enough time with him? I don't know you but I would credit you with enough intelligence to see the difference between bratty behavior and autistic behavior. There is a vast difference between autistic behavior and ADHD behavior. The article clearly mentions the overwhelming work that comes with having an autistic child... therapists, IEP meetings, specialty babysitters, sometimes physical assistance objects... one does not have the choice of being an absent parent when the usually simple process of findng someone else to watch your child becomes impossible because no one else can handle him. Please don't point your finger at parents until you know what you are up against. Volunteer at a charity aftercare. See what we have to deal with before you start yelling about misdiagnosis and "negligent" parenting.

    47. Re:read the article by casey_66 · · Score: 1

      The article is about AUTISM not ADHD. Autists are not necessarily "little hellions" although they have fits like any other child. The fact that they cannot discern "proper" behavior in different social settings makes their outbursts sometimes seem hellacious and other times amusing.
      The diagnostic criteria for Autism is not at all vague. Perhaps you should look it up, it is all over the web. What is vague is the fact that Autism is now considered a Spectrum disorder so there are some kids who display the symptoms but not to the strict degree that "classic" autism calls for to have a diagnosis.
      The whole of the article is to state that stats show an increase in Autism even when all other facters are taken into consideration. An authority is quoted as saying 'anyone who still thinks that there is only an increase it diagnosis has their head in the sand'
      Somehow you know better than all the doctors' parents, therapists and state offcials about a primarily genetic disorder you seem to confuse with a psychiatric disorder?
      Parents af neurotypicals like to think that this is all just hoopla so we selfish negligent parents can avoid responsibility for our bratty kids. Well I am beginning to think that this attitude shows how parents af neurotypicals just want to feel superior so no one will notice how boringly selfish THEY are about their own kids when they give them every comfort known to man then beat them because the kid acts selfish.

    48. Re:read the article by casey_66 · · Score: 1

      If you had any idea how difficult it is to find help for and raise an autistic child you wouldn't say such ignorant things. Any parent who tries to get their child misdiagnosed as autistic would either change their mind in a hurry once they find out how impossible it can be to get help or they must be HUGE masochists. It's like saying lots of white teenagers want to be classified as african americans cause it's overromanticized in the media! IF they could get away with such a thing, they'd change their mind in a HUGE hurry. IF you think having an autistic child has any kind of advantage so far as getting special help for your kid, you are really in the dark my friend. There are parents of autist who move to other states, other regions, other COUNTRIES in order to find some kind of help for their situation. Any professional who works with autists would not hesitate in the slightest to turn away a child who was not definitely truly autistic... they have no dearth of clientele.
      There is nothing romantic about it.

    49. Re:read the article by uebernewby · · Score: 2

      The problem of your argument is that you seem to assume that autists actually care to function in society. The fact is that most don't seem to care.

      Actually, I don't assume that autists care to function in society. I would, however, like to differentiate between people who suffer from a neurological disorder that makes it *physically* impossible for them to function in society, and people who have nothing wrong with them neurologically speaking but who are allowed to let their "loner" tendencies go unchecked. The *result* of letting these "normal" tendencies go unchecked is, in practice, the same as being a "proper autist", you let someone get away with shying away for society for twenty years growing up, and they'll be complete and utter social wrecks, and as yet, there's very little you can do about it afterwards.

      You'll also find that psychological disorders (notice I'm not questioning the fact that these kids *do* suffer from psychological disorders) can lead to behavioral abberance that's very similar to that caused by neurological disorders: flapping hands, rocking back and forth, that sort of thing. The cause of the behavior is different, however.

      When I bring ADHD into this discussion, it's not because I think the two disorders are similar, it's because I feel there's a similar mechanism at work ("bad upbringing", my grandma would call it, secretly, many teachers would agree with her). Whether parents can help it is often debatable, but fact is there was hardly any ADHD, borderline psychosis or "almost autism" fifty years ago, when the social fabric was a lot stronger than it is today (of course, they had other problems back then, one of which was a "disorder" called "neurastheny", common in repressed women, homosexuals and others who weren't allowed to live fulfilling lives).

      But yes, I agree with you that something needs to be done. Present-day Dutch society (but I imagine this holds true for the rest of the western world as well) is ridiculously short-sighted in forcing parents to spend insane amounts of time at work, causing them to neglect the upbringing of their children. Day care, therapists, specialty babysitters etc. aren't the solution, they merely alleviate the most pressing symptoms. Rethinking our (work) ethic would have a much more lasting effect.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    50. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TROLL!

    51. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell is this post supposed to be a troll?

    52. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please. Even today, not everything is C, C++, Java, or Perl. (Is this in Python too?)

    53. Re:read the article by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      Look, try to jump out of your victim mentality for a second. I was referring specifically to the parents of children who are "troubled" in school but would not have been categorized as autistic ten years ago.

      I think an interesting study would be a graph of severity of autism on one axis and parental income and education on the other axis. My uneducated guess would be that there would be comparable rates of _severe_ autism across income levels but there would be a suspicious jump in levels of _minor_ cases of autism in children of parents with the financial ability to pay for treatment for their children. Draw your own conclusions but Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is also correlated to parental education and income.

      I'm willing to bet there is a similar graph that would apply to attention deficit disorder. OF COURSE there are are severely affected children who are strongly benefited by drugs and treatment, but for the borderline kids, the kids without extensive medical insurance are going to be labeled as "troubled" and the kids with medical insurance are going to be doped with Ritalin. In the long run, the poorer kids may be better off.

      Finally, please don't think I don't have sympathy for the children and parents of children with autism whether severe or mild. But, you can't just play the sympathy card and stop all discussion on this, or any topic. Just because these statements don't apply to one case doesn't mean that they don't apply in others.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    54. Re:read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the parent of an autistic child, I can tell you that there is more to autism than just being a "loner". My child suffers from many nasty symptoms, including head-banging, incessant repetition of phrases, and so forth. He also now suffers from a serious liver disease that will likely end his life (GI tract diseases are significantly more common in children with autism).

      In other words, there's more to it than just parenting problems.

      I will agree that parents can have a dramatic impact on their children, autistic or otherwise, by spending time with them and raising them well. My wife does not, and never has, worked outside the home, even though she has a technical degree. She did this deliberately so that our children would have the benefits of her influence. I personally control the hours I spend at work so that I can be home, feeling that my responsibilities at work must be balanced with my duties as a father.

      Please, don't blame the parents. Many forms of autism are diseases with unknown causes. We didn't ask for an autistic child, but we are doing the best we can.

  7. Anyone remember logic? by rackrent · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ok, work with me:

    Premise: "Nick" is acting weird.

    Premise: His parents are software engineers.

    Conclusion: Nick's behavior is an effect of his parents' occupation.

    BBBZZZZZZT. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. In other words, correlation does not equal causation. It's the same logic that says: "You watch a violent movie, you're going to be a violent person." Really? How do you make that link? You can't. There are too many other factors involved, just like in little "Nick's" case.

    Watch out for bad research and its conclusions.

    --
    --- There is a man in a smiling bag.
    1. Re:Anyone remember logic? by KingAdrock · · Score: 1

      I am not acting weird!

    2. Re:Anyone remember logic? by Derkec · · Score: 2


      What you stated is a logical falacy, you are correct. However, if one believes there is a correlation, it's not impossible to do some surveys and compare "Nick's" wierd behavior rates among children of software engineers to the rates in the general public. If there is a statistical difference, then there is a correlation. The speculation on slashdot today is focused mostly on 'why' such a correlation has been found.

  8. Its not all bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of counting fallen matches in an instant, we grow up reading binary code like any other langage. Suck on that Neo! ;)

  9. Capitalism encourages Autism by CommunistTroll · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Of course Silicon Valley has a lot of geeks with Ausbergers - Capitalism loves workers with Autism.

    Microserfs work hard, and as long as you keep them supplied with Jolt Cola (TM) they won't start asking questions like "Why am I here?"

    Don't worry about Art, Music, Social Interaction, Sex, just keep drinking the Cola and writing that accounting code. We'll do all the thinking for you; we'll provide you with a nice cubical and keep all the nasty social interaction away from you.

    Keep coding for the man! It's the code that matters! Don't question who you are or what you are doing! You only exist to work!

    1. Re:Capitalism encourages Autism by dirtyhippie · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You, sir, kick ass.

    2. Re:Capitalism encourages Autism by Blackneto · · Score: 0

      Actually I don't think you are too far off.
      The article does mention that "Microsoft became the first major US corporation to offer its employees insurance benefits to cover the cost of behavioral training for their autistic children."

      Could this be that they are using this as free research on how to develop more of these people for thier own use???

      -

      --
      Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
    3. Re:Capitalism encourages Autism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offtopic? WTF?

    4. Re:Capitalism encourages Autism by CLinCH · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty illogical argument you have there. In fact, I believe communism (my best guess as to what you suport) would encourage such compartmentalization.
      "don't worry about anything except your job, we'll take of everything else" and "keep coding for the man, don't question who you are, what you are doing, you only exist to work"
      Those lines seem more characteristic of communism than capitalism.

    5. Re:Capitalism encourages Autism by CommunistTroll · · Score: 1

      Not at all!

      Under capitalism you have to sell your life to your employer - unpaid overtime anyone?

      Under communism you are guaranteed a job, so the power of the capitalism employer is broken.

      You only have to work part of the time, and have free time to create, enjoy and live. Look at socialist France - the 35 hour week is enshrined in legislation; compare their wonderful and diverse cinema industry with the schlock that Hollywood churns out.

    6. Re:Capitalism encourages Autism by Skapare · · Score: 2

      Both capitalism and communism expoit the worker. The difference is in what you get from the stock options.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    7. Re:Capitalism encourages Autism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could this be that they are using this as free research on how to develop more of these people for thier own use???

      Uh, no. Gates is an autistic. And since Microsoft is footing the bill for insurance, it isn't free.

    8. Re:Capitalism encourages Autism by Capsaicin · · Score: 1
      Keep coding for the man! It's the code that matters! Don't question who you are or what you are doing! You only exist to work!

      You sir, are an incompetent troll! You keep on hitting the nail far to well on the head.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    9. Re:Capitalism encourages Autism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Microserfs work hard, and as long as you keep them supplied with Jolt Cola (TM) they won't start asking questions like "Why am I here?"

      Of course "microserfs" diagnosed with autism/AS work hard, because they enjoy their work. Is that such a hard concept for you? I seem to recall Marx (where was he on the autistic spectrum) saying something like "from each according to their ability."

      Maybe "microserfs" like the capitalistic world of paid work because it is so much better than the Stalinist oppression of public school. The central planners (educrats), elite commissars (teachers), secret police (jocks in team uniforms), card-carrying Party members (preppies), compulsory military service (phys-ed), enforced loyalty to the State (peer socialization), and of course the proletariat (students). Pol Pot would have loved the knuckle-dragging anti-intellectualism that goes on in public schools under the name of equality.

      Don't worry about Art, Music, Social Interaction, Sex, just keep drinking the Cola and writing that accounting code.

      As opposed to some self-hating academic sociology Ph.D. worried sick about the Evil White Male math, science, and technology which keeps him fed and clothed. As for social interaction, it's limited to his bourgeois class interests. As for sex, he's too busy with his work.

      We'll do all the thinking for you; we'll provide you with a nice cubical and keep all the nasty social interaction away from you.

      The "microserf" has already done all his/her thinking, knows where everything stands, likes his/her cubicle for peace of mind.

      BTW, my experience with autistic/AS persons is that most of them are left-of-centre freethinkers rather than the corporate buffoons you make them to be.

  10. Maybe... by dbCooper0 · · Score: 0

    Just like the insurgance of Ritalin prescribed for children in Michigan, this is a psych's way of feeling more important? I mean, all of our kids are different, aren't they? Isn't that what makes them * special * ?
    Get over it.

    --
    db
    Cig:
    ôô
    /`
  11. Geeks with children, impossible! by Anonymous+Pancake · · Score: 0, Funny

    True geeks do not have sex!

    1. Re:Geeks with children, impossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's all just take a moment to thank the gods for that!

  12. Overdiagnosis? by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Many doctors and teachers are diagnosing kids at ADHD because they have too many kids in a class to manage properly.


    Did they ever consider it not a disease, but lack of teaching? Most geeks lack social skills and are poor at picking up social clues. Now, if they have children, where will their children learn this from?

    1. Re:Overdiagnosis? by LinuxGeek8 · · Score: 2

      Maybe that counts for ADHD, because that is mostly a social problem.

      I didn't read the article yet, but afaik it's still widely accepted that real autism does not come from social structures, or is learned in any way.
      Sometime in the sixties and seventies it was claimed that autism was caused by hartless parents. This simply isn't true, and did hurt lots of loving and caring parents.
      Real autism is biological, and is caused by a different way if coping with the world around you, and within you.

      Simply said, an autist can only handle one impression at the time.
      Emotions are more complex than that one thing they can handle. So emotions are more than they can handle.
      So when you are starting to communicate with an autist, and emotions are coming into the playground, the kid turns away.

      --
      Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
    2. Re:Overdiagnosis? by LinuxGeek8 · · Score: 2

      Just when posting, I remember something.

      You are right, overdiagnosing does happen.

      Some kids are not real autists.
      Their parents just can't handle them, they can't invest in them with love and care.
      These kids are left out in the cold, and they act like autists.
      A good doctor should also look at the social structure of a family. If it seems that the social structure is lacking a lot, then the kids should not be labeled al autist right away.
      Some doctors don't look at the social structure, nd label a kid as autist, while in fact the kid is not an autist.

      I'm sure most labeled autists are real autists though.
      Now off to read the article :)

      --
      Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
    3. Re:Overdiagnosis? by zmooc · · Score: 2

      You should watch the Southpark-episode which is about exactly that; all Southpark gets diagnosed with ADHD:) But if you've read the _whole_ article, you should by now know that the cause (of autism) is most probably genetic and that it's clearly not a lack of teaching since most babies appear normal and all of the sudden "detoriate" and are diagnosed autistic...

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    4. Re:Overdiagnosis? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      "Most geeks lack social skills and are poor at picking up social clues."

      I'd say I'm brilliant at picking up social clues. I can normally judge people within the first 30 seconds of meeting them, and in the long run my judgements always are right. However, I'm a "no I don't want to go out tonight, I'd rather solve a few equations and write some code"-type geek.
      So I think you're generalising somewhat.

      "Now, if they have children, where will their children learn this from?"

      However, here I believe you're spot on. Accepting your generalisation above, I do know _many_ geeks, and I really really fear for the sanity of their offspring if they were to have any.

      FatPhil

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    5. Re:Overdiagnosis? by Baki · · Score: 2

      My doughter would be diagnosed with ADHD by many nowadays, but I refuese to accept that. I agree with you that there are other causes, and that it simply needs a good gentle approach and tact to "correct", that is some children just are more susceptible for "rebellion" and need more attention, attention that many parents or teachers cannot or will not give nowadays.

      If you then label it and call it some name, the "problem" seems more under control and might give a good feeling to some. I don't buy that, I think it is just a social problem that needs attention and time and it is not helpful to label it and accept it as some kind of disease.

    6. Re:Overdiagnosis? by budgenator · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Boy you should see my family at christmas dinner, most of us would probably qualify as border-line Asperger's syndrome and the 'Normals' in the family usualy either hide in another room, or leave crying over percieved social snubs. Yes I can be "social", but its a skill set that's learned, and when I do it it's a mode of thinking that I turn on or off.

      And as for teachers, they are either crying johnny can't focus, or johnny is so focused that he resents my trying to get his attention to teach him this silly bullshit. Most of what I learned in school was learned inspite of the teacher.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    7. Re:Overdiagnosis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a lot of experience with ADHD kids... and most times that a child comes up with "having" ADHD, the parents are a huge source.

      The utter incompetancy to outright emotional and finanical neglect some parents have always amazes me.

      It amazes me that childcare providers and teachers have to have certifications and background checks (fingerprint, full criminal record check) out the whazoo but parents don't need any kind of screening at all. This really reminds me of an old Onion article. AIL, or LIA? Or LIAIL?

      My mom works in social services in an anonymous locale. She gives workshops to parents as part of her job on basic stuff on how to be a parent. You know, complex and hard stuff like pay the bills, take out the garbage, don't leave weapons out, don't leave out drugs/medicine/poisons and etc. And these are usually the parents with the MOST kids :/

    8. Re:Overdiagnosis? by Sebbo · · Score: 2

      Gosh. A comment on the article from someone who hasn't read it yet. How terribly surprising.

    9. Re:Overdiagnosis? by psych031337 · · Score: 2
      Maybe that counts for ADHD, because that is mostly a social problem.


      ADD is NOT a social problem. It is a organic dopamine deficiency problem. It can be shown in graphic brain scans. And it is in the genes (therefore inherited from parent to kid). Most ADHD grown-ups I know have been diagnosed when their got diagnosed. Many of them have found the solution to their life-long problems. ("You mean I am not lazy, stupid or crazy...")
      --
      +++ath0
    10. Re:Overdiagnosis? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      When your three year old son stops being able to speak, stays rigid while you hold him, and spends all day rocking himself, don't worry, I'll know it's not because you didn't teach him something.

      Please. This is not just a socialization problem.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    11. Re:Overdiagnosis? by Ionized · · Score: 1

      "Most geeks lack social skills and are poor at picking up social clues."

      I'm a "no I don't want to go out tonight, I'd rather solve a few equations and write some code"-type geek.
      So I think you're generalising somewhat.


      please read those two excerpts until you understand what boobery you have performed.

      hint: most != all,

      most != you

    12. Re:Overdiagnosis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all fairness, I also feel the 'most' generalization is incorrect. I know many geeks (including myself), and to say that any of them lack social skills or are poor at picking up social clues would be wildly inaccurate (at least, as a rule, anyway). I think that in some cases, the stereotypical not-fitting-in may come from an inability to replicate these traits, rather than to spot them. For example, I will never make a good voice actor, but I've found that I'm a very skilled animator. I will probably never make a good actor, but I am confident I'd be quite good at directing.

      If you've ever played or sat in on an old style game of Dungeons & Dragons, you'll see what I mean. The imagery, detail, and nuance that gets slung about can be fascinating to listen to. The delivery, however, is usually plagued by monotonous, uncomfortable, geek voices.

      But maybe we're getting into another thread of geekdom not encompassed by this.

    13. Re:Overdiagnosis? by Ionized · · Score: 1

      well, i think this is a situation where anecdotal evidence must be excluded. think about it: the geeks you know (and are most likely at least somewhat friendly with) may not be stereotypical hyper-introverted geeks, but then again, if they were hyper-introverted geeks, you wouldn't know them now would you?

      it's not unlike a very church-oriented individual proclaiming that "most people aren't religious" is an incorrect generalization, because they know many people, who are mostly religious. (well of course, most people they know are probably known through church.)

      as for d&d, it's not just geeks that play it :-) and for the ones that do, i doubt they would fall into the asperger's side of the geek spectrum. an aspergers seems much more likely to spend weeks constructing a very realistic campaign setting, but not be inclined to actually play it out.

      hrm... after rereading the above paragraphs, they seem a little stilted in getting my point across. hopefully you see what i'm getting at; i'm at work and don't have time to go back and de-clunkify.

    14. Re:Overdiagnosis? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Hehe - a summary of the start of the thread

      You:
      Me: You're generalising somewhat

      Consider my rush to demonstrate that counterexamples exist to be a reinforcement that on the whole there's a lot of truth in your generalisation.

      Indeed, my boob.

      FatPhil

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    15. Re:Overdiagnosis? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      GRRR! '<' and '>' are /plain text/, I wish slashcode had the brains to work out what to do.
      And me to preview, I guess...

      You: <explicit and deliberate generalisation>
      Me: You're generalising somewhat

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  13. What do you expect? by HanzoSan · · Score: 2



    Think about this, lets take the average stereptypical programmer from silicon valley, whos anti social, who prolly had no friends growing up and in school, if the kid turns out anything like the parent, its genetics.

    if you look at how they define autism, anyone whos anti social, who stays to themselves, who doesnt talk much, they are considered autistic. Of course theres other issues involved, but doctors are quick to put some name on somenoe whos just not the norm.

    Forget what doctors say, give these kids a computer, and check back in 20 years.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect people to use real words when they post -- 'prolly' is not a word.

    2. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thankfully, no one is beholden to what "you expect"

    3. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And babooey to you, sir!

    4. Re:What do you expect? by zmooc · · Score: 2
      What you say is not exactly true; autists are rather easy to separate from those that just need some more practive for their social skills. The fact that these people are sometimes called `slightly autistic' or whatever doesn't mean they actually are autistic, it only means that the word autistic happens to be used for their behaviour just because it's easy to use the word in that context.

      Autists are diagnosed by a lot more than what you list; especially things like manical attraction to symmetrical and repetitive structures (TRAINS!!!) and fear of unknown things (especially in the social context) are very common to autists. It's also not like they `don't talk much'; many of them don't talk at all. It's not just a bit of lack of social capacities, it's a serious disability.

      Good advice: read the whole article (it's worth it) or read a bit more about autism:)

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    5. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      prolly wanna cracker?

    6. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an autistic adult, I have to say that there are differences between someone with some social problems and an autistic.

      I did not speak until I was 5. To this day, I still have trouble speaking sometimes. While I can sometimes give a speech before a few thousand people, other times I can't even order fast food because I lose my words. It's not that I don't want to talk much - it is that I can't. (although some autistics and asperger's adults can speak without much problem) If you listend to my voice, you would know something is up, since it is very flat and sounds like I have an accent.

      Social difficulties are also very large. I have problems meeting friends, even when I work in tech companies where there should be lots of people with the same interests. I moved to a new town, lived there two years, and in that time didn't meet even one person that I would call a friend. I had no aquantences outside of work. This isn't simply "geekiness" or "shyness".

      I also do the "stims" - that is, I might rock or clap or make strange sounds. I do this to cope with a world that isn't designed for autistics.

      But, where I disagree with the article is that autism isn't always a horrible thing. I like my life. I'm employed in the computer field (fortunately not where I have to work with other people). I live what many would call a "boring" life, but I like it. I'm also very good at what I do - something I consider to be a direct result of being autistic.

    7. Re:What do you expect? by matt_king · · Score: 0

      It seems all these posts are similiar...Anyhow, you seem to not have any experience with autism, so let me try to debunk a couple of things you said.

      -being just "anti-social" as a teen does not necessarily indicate autism. The symptons of autism occur early in child development, and are most of the time very visible to the parents and educators. Both my niece and nephew (5 and 3 yrs old) have PDD, and the symptoms are very visible when you see them around other children their age.

      -Sure, there is a common misconception that we just try to label people and give them drugs, but you help no one by ignoring the people for whom this disease truly affects.

  14. Frighteningly true by MiTEG · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I realize many of you will simply dismiss this as poor research, but it is frighteningly true. A good friend of mine teaches elementary school here in the Silicon Valley, and last year she had the misfortune of having 2 children affected by this, one with Autism and the other with Asperger's. This was in a class of 20 children, mind you, and the odds of 2 in a group of 20 children having these are astronomical. So don't try to tell me this is BS!

    --
    The future isn't what it used to be.
    1. Re:Frighteningly true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sure, but the folks who claim some insidious trend do not seem to back it up in the article. For example:

      "Anyone who says this epidemic is due to better diagnostics," he says, "has his head in the sand."



      because?....

      So, how can this be 'frightently true'? Remember the whole ADD fiasco? Everyone and their brother was diagnosed with ADD? This is the problem with psychological 'disorders' - they are hard to diagnose.

      Discretion, not hype, is called for!

    2. Re:Frighteningly true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's BS you fucking retard. There were always kids that didn't fit society's definition of "Normal", that doesn't mean we have to label them with some fucking disease name.

      This is all because stupid doctors want to homogenize the world into mindless zombies that all think alike, and everyone else is "sick". This is eugenics at it's purest.

    3. Re:Frighteningly true by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1
      Wow. "It can't be bad research methodology and I have an anecdote to prove it!"

      Before I read the article, I thought that it was probably due to the fact that Silicon Valley had a generally higher standard of living, and therefore better health care. So kids were, I assumed, getting diagnosed more because more of them are being run through evaluations.

      But the article points out that the number of diagnosed cases is escalating all over California. But we don't know whether this is due to an increase in actual cases, or a change in the average doctor's understanding of what constitutes autism.

      From the article:

      It's not easy to arrive at a clear picture of whether there actually is a startling rise in the incidence of autism in California, as opposed to just an increase in diagnoses. One problem, says Linda Lotspeich, director of the Stanford Pervasive Developmental Disorders Clinic, is that "the rules in the DSM-IV don't work." The diagnostic criteria are subjective, like "Marked impairment in the use of nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction."

      "How much 'eye-to-eye gaze' do you have to have to be normal?" asks Lotspeich. "How do you define what 'marked' is? In shades of gray, when does black become white?"


      It's possible for even intelligent doctors to hop on a diagnostic bandwagon. Back in the 70's, when tonsil removal was such a fad, a study was done where something like 100 tonsilled children were sent to doctors for evaluation. Something like half of them were recommended for tonsil removal. Then the fifty (I don't remember the precise number) who were declared OK were sent to different doctors, and half of them were recommended for tonsil removal. At that point, they ran out of new doctors to send the kids to, but by then the point was already made.

      I think there's something more than just statistical tomfoolery going on here, but I think you sound all too sure of the definitive nature of your "evidence."
      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    4. Re:Frighteningly true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A good friend of mine teaches elementary school here in the Silicon Valley, and last year she had the misfortune of having 2 children affected by this, one with Autism and the other with Asperger's.

      Although I appreciate some of the conclusions of the Wired article, allow me to play the sceptic. It is entirely possible for an ordinary schoolteacher to have an Asperger's student; but the to meet the actual medical definition of Autism would require a level of "retardation" that would prohibit them entering an ordinary classroom setting, except that of a disturbed and profound special education one. If the teacher does not have such a class, the diagnosis of "autistic" was exactly the sort of overdiagnosis that critics of the labeling of children as the disease of the decade have attacked occuring in the schoolsystem.
    5. Re:Frighteningly true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enumeration of favorable statistics. If she was consistently seeing 10% of the class affected with autism or Asperger's year after year, you might have something.

      Until then, stop being an alarmist.

  15. Like you didn't see it coming... by heyetv · · Score: 2



    And you thought War Driving with the Kids was harmless Saturday fun...

  16. ADHD by HanzoSan · · Score: 2, Insightful



    ADHD is basically a kid whos not normal, who rebels.

    If you rebel, if you arent normal, these doctors will find something to diagnose you with, be it ADHD, or Autism, they will find some stupid excuse. And really this is like abuse to the kids, first it ruins their self esteem to hear doctors and teachers and students treat them like they have some kinda real disease like downs syndrome etc, second, they get drugged up so much in school that if they do manage to learn a damn thing in school its a miracle.

    Instead of finding stupid names for kids who are simply diffrent, first it was nerds, then geeks, then ADHD, then autistic, why not just accept a few things, first, everyone learns diffrent. Second, everyone develops at their own pace, some people dont learn to speak for the first 5 years of life and end up becoming famous writers. Really, its a matter of accepting the fact that when it comes to dealing with kids and teaching, theres no standard way to do it, you do what works for each kid, of course, when classrooms are packed with 50 kids you are going to do what works for the "generic" kid.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:ADHD by frantzdb · · Score: 2
      ADHD is basically a kid whos not normal, who rebels.
      Only some of the symptoms of ADHD relate to someone being a rebel. From WebMD, some of the symptoms of ADHD:
      • does not pay close attention to details; may make careless mistakes at work, school, or other activities
      • failure to complete tasks
      • has difficulty maintaining attention in tasks or play activities
      • does not listen when spoken to directly
      • has difficulty organizing tasks
      • is easily distracted
      • unable to follow more than one instruction at a time
      Also, clinical tests for it include testing for marked difference between IQ and various aptitude tests. For example, arithmatic apptitude being >2 standard deviations from IQ.

      While I agree that some are misdiagonsed with ADD/ADHD, there are those for whom it is a real problem.
      --Ben

    2. Re:ADHD by Cuthalion · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I used to also believe that ADD was a load of hooey. Until I met my college roommate, John. Nice guy, very creative, very cool.

      He had a much more extreme case of ADD than I had seen. When he forgot to take his ritalin, he was unable to get anything done. I don't just mean homework, I mean he wasn't able to stay focused on tv or video games or projects he was working on to procrastinate doing homework. He found that extremely frustrating. When medicated he was still extremely creative and imaginative, but he could put those abilities to use for more than 5 minutes at a shot.

      Now, I will be the first to admit that ADD is overdiagnosed, but to say that it's just a stupid name for kids who are simply different is to deny people like John any medical assistance, and to condem him to a life of spinning his mental wheels, when he'd rather take the perscribed drugs to balance his brain chemistry so he can do the stuff that he wants to.

      --
      Trees can't go dancing
      So do them a big favor
      Pretend dancing stinks!
    3. Re:ADHD by HanzoSan · · Score: 2, Interesting



      Well how do you know his problem is actually ADHD and not something else?

      It seems most people who have so called ADHD, its a childhood phase, i havent met any adults with it. Secondlly most people who do have it, while they cant concentrate on school, they DO concentrate on things they like.

      I dont think ive ever met anyone who couldnt concentrate on anything at all, perhaps your friend is a rare extreme case, and if ritalin is helping him thats good. But doctors these days give people drugs when they dont really NEED them. Your friend obviously has a serious problem.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    4. Re:ADHD by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      Just like some people are seriously sucidally depressed, seriousally full of anger etc to the point where they have no self control and need medicine. These cases are EXTREMELY rare.

      Theres no reason we should be taking pills for just the typical depression, the typical ADHD, or the typical anger problems.

      Some people really do have bad chemistry, and those people do get help from the pills, but these people are very VERY rare.

      As far as all the things you list, I've never met anyone who based on whats up there, truely has ADHD, yet i've met people on meds for it. Really, 99 percent of all the cases of ADHD are just kids who dont pay attention in the classroom, these same kids go home and all of the sudden ADHD seems to mysteriously vanish.

      While some do have a real problem, just like some people are truely mentally unstable and not just depressed or angry, usually its not so bad.

      Also i disagree with shoving pills down peoples throats, i dont really think pills is the answer, its like getting a person high and hoping they get well. I think there should be some steps to treatment, first by teaching the kid to focus, by finding something the kid really likes, and seeing how long they can focus on it, second is to try to mix things the kid likes and bring it to the classroom.

      I mean you must admit, it certainly is harder to focus on something you cant stand, than something you enjoy alot.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    5. Re:ADHD by Hobbex · · Score: 4, Interesting


      Contrary to popular belief, ritalin is not some magic drug, it works almost exactly like amphetamine. If your friend had been addicted to speed for the last ten years, would you be surprised that he was a wreck when off it? There are alcoholics that can seem completely functional for long periods of time as long as they stay drunk, but break down completely if they do not get a drink - same thing goes with most drugs.

    6. Re:ADHD by GMontag451 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You're right, ritalin works almost exactly like amphetamine or caffiene or any other related stimulant. However, you will find that if you give a stimulant to a normal person, he/she will start acting like Cuthalion's friend when he was off the drugs. But if you give a stimulant like ritalin to a person with ADD or ADHD, it will actually calm him/her down. This indicates there is a chemical difference between normal people and people with ADHD.

      However, this does not mean that giving them drugs is the right thing to do. All it does is create a dependency which may or may not be necessary. It is a much more responsible thing (IMHO) to recommend they take Ritalin only sparingly, and at least attempt to overcome their neurological problem by themselves. This approach would give them the opportunity to learn behaviors that would help them when they don't have access to Ritalin, and ultimately be much more beneficial to them than just relying on drugs to fix their problem.

    7. Re:ADHD by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      It seems most people who have so called ADHD, its a childhood phase, i havent met any adults with it.

      I know three. They're all nice people, but sometimes you want to stick a sock in their mouths as they launch into discoherent monologues that cover a half a dozen topics over ten minutes without a chance for anyone else to get a word in edgewise.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    8. Re:ADHD by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2

      You've obviously have never had any experience with amphetamines.

      The army routinely hands them to soldiers and pilots. If used in moderation, amphetamine is like coffee, but better.

      Taking a normal does of amphetamine does not turn you into a crazed maniac. Abuse is a different matter. Unfortunately, amphetamine is easy to abuse, hence it's status as a controlled substance.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    9. Re:ADHD by jmauro · · Score: 1

      So in other words a normal, every day kid.

    10. Re:ADHD by EllisDees · · Score: 1
      However, you will find that if you give a stimulant to a normal person, he/she will start acting like Cuthalion's friend when he was off the drugs.

      Not quite. What you would find is that amphetamines, in non-excessive doses, will help *anyone* concentrate.
      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    11. Re:ADHD by Reziac · · Score: 1
      Also the dosage can make a difference. Frex, valium in very small doses (approx. 1/5th of the usual dose when prescribed as a sedative) acts as a stimulant.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    12. Re:ADHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know nothing of psychopharm. Ritalin works as well for normals as it does for people with ADD.

    13. Re:ADHD by psych031337 · · Score: 2
      ADHD is basically a kid whos not normal, who rebels.

      Bullshit. A doctor who diagnosed a kid for ADHD basically because it rebels does not deserve this title. There is a large percentage among those diagnosed ADHD that is more the "silent, dreamer like person". This is why ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) is seen as an outdated term. Today ADD (attention deficit disorder - note the omission of "hyperactivity" is used more commonly.

      If you rebel, if you arent normal, these doctors will find something to diagnose you with, be it ADHD, or Autism, they will find some stupid excuse. And really this is like abuse to the kids, first it ruins their self esteem to hear doctors and teachers and students treat them like they have some kinda real disease like downs syndrome etc, second, they get drugged up so much in school that if they do manage to learn a damn thing in school its a miracle.

      Please get your facts straight. Most kids diagnosed with a true ADD suck at school for obvious reasons - distraction in school and procrastrination in homework (which is basically a result of the distractions). After the best dose of Ritalin or another stimulant is found they usually sky-rocket in school. Also, being on "drugs" allows them to make friends and be a normal child for the first time in their life. Now, what does boost self-esteem? Rejection and failures or friends and success?
      --
      +++ath0
    14. Re:ADHD by psych031337 · · Score: 2
      Now, I will be the first to admit that ADD is overdiagnosed, but to say that it's just a stupid name for kids who are simply different is to deny people like John any medical assistance, and to condem him to a life of spinning his mental wheels, when he'd rather take the perscribed drugs to balance his brain chemistry so he can do the stuff that he wants to.

      Schizophrenically, we currently have a disgnosis situation (in the US and abroad) that basically consist of rebellious kids who were diagnosed with ADHD too fast because of the hyperactivity bit ADHD. On the other hand we have underdiagnosis because there is a lot of kids out there that don`t fit the hyperactive picture. There is a large percentage of "hypoactive" kids with ADD (ADHD minus hyperactivity) that don`t get diagnosed, because they are not enough of a PITA. These kids fit into the "silent, dreamy" kind of person and are rarely diagnosed because they don't stir that much trouble in school and at home. Their bad grades are just written of to laziness or stupidity. And these kids deserver diagnosis and treatment just as well.
      --
      +++ath0
    15. Re:ADHD by psych031337 · · Score: 2
      This indicates there is a chemical difference between normal people and people with ADHD.

      There are other indicators as well - a lot of ADD suffering people have "paradox" reactions to medications and substances. For example I cannot take any OTC painkiller because it worsens the symptomes. I have to receive triple anaesthesia (sp?) for minor surgeries. Barbiturates or benzodiazepines (like Valium) will actually get me going up the walls and not down.

      However, this does not mean that giving them drugs is the right thing to do. All it does is create a dependency which may or may not be necessary. It is a much more responsible thing (IMHO) to recommend they take Ritalin only sparingly, and at least attempt to overcome their neurological problem by themselves.

      Well, treating ADHD with Ritalin is about the only thing that yields a 80% success. Also, Ritalin taken as prescribed for ADHD DOES NEVER create any kind of dependency. In fact most Ritalin-consumers have to be reminded to take their meds on time. Does not sound like addiction to me. Ritalin taken orally does not stimulate the "reward-complex" part of the brain as cocaine (nasally) does. The time span between comsumption and effect is too big for the brain to correlate the events and form addiction. The pharmacy breakins that occasionally happen are usually by kids who crush and snort the Methylphenidate. This can yield "drug-like" effects like euphoria and might grow into an addiction if done for a long time. And for the last part - "overcoming problems by themselves". It is a neat idea but too far-fetched to work. Kids/grown-ups with ADHD have a dopamine deficiency. Would you deny insuline to someone who needs it to allow him to "overcome the problem by himself" ? I hope not.

      This approach would give them the opportunity to learn behaviors that would help them when they don't have access to Ritalin, and ultimately be much more beneficial to them than just relying on drugs to fix their problem.

      A lot of approaches in terms of psychotherapy have been made to cure/treat ADHD. ADHD cannot be cured. It is a deficiency in your dopaminergic system. The weird thing about it - it does not work jackshit for itself. It might be somewhat beneficial if done in combination with Ritalin. Why? Because sitting your ADHD kid in the same room with a psychiatrist who does a lot of boring talk is kinda like "one ear in - other ear out". The patient needs the Ritalin to even focus on what the psychiatrist is saying, and to relate it to his life. But given the fact that most ADHD have somewhat high intellgence and good problem-coping skills it is usually enough (for an grown-up ADHD patient) to grant him access to Ritalin and let him work it out for himself. You'd be surprised how many of these patients are actually uncomfortable with their medication and take the first chance to get off it (usually after a year or two). These Ritalin-made glanced into the lives of "neuro-normal" people are enough for the ADHD people to find a middle way for themselves.
      --
      +++ath0
    16. Re:ADHD by Ravenwing · · Score: 1

      Oh, shut the hell up.

      I have ADD (the non-hyper form, not ADHD). I was diagnosed at the age of 30, when I finally couldn't keep covering it up with my smarts and organizational tools. Believe me, I was "working smarter, not harder" as hard as I could, but my life was becoming a constant game of treading water and it SUCKED.

      I got through school because I was genius-IQ smart and loved to learn. I could easily 'hyper-focus' (an ADD behavior) on schoolwork because I enjoyed it immensely and I'd finish it so fast that I never had to worry about follow-through to the extent that it would affect my grades. In college, however, I could no longer slide by and my grades tanked - I barely squeeked out with a degree.

      Ritalin (well, actually Concerta) has been a godsend. I'm able to finally follow through effectively with all the self-help organizational tools I tried to use in the past. I can organize my thoughts and tasks, I complete things for a change, and I no longer feel overwhelmed by everyday life.

      It's nothing at all like being high (I'm assuming - I've never gotten high). It just helps me have the volition to follow through on things I *want* to do, but had a hard time getting the volition to complete before.

      I bet you tell diabetics to suck it up and quit taking insulin, too.

      --
      -- Raven
    17. Re:ADHD by markmoss · · Score: 2

      For example I cannot take any OTC painkiller because it worsens the symptomes. I have to receive triple anaesthesia (sp?) for minor surgeries. Barbiturates or benzodiazepines (like Valium) will actually get me going up the walls and not down.

      Interesting. I definitely had ADHD when I was a kid, and I rather suspect I still have it -- I just learned to take control and keep my concentration going when I can control the environment... (Then again, is it possible to have ADHD & Aspergers both?) Anyhow, I have rather the opposite reaction -- sedatives of any sort knock me out. I get drunk on half a can of beer. It's hereditary -- my mother also has no tolerance for alcohol or sedatives, and has had problems in surgery due to over-reaction to the anesthetics.

  17. Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by puppetman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've read that the levels of pollution in SV are pretty mind-boggling. While software development is "pollution free" (except for the crap we developers eat that mascarades as food), other industry there has not been so kind to the soil and water.

    As Salon points out in this article, the situation is pretty dire.

    From the New Almaden Mine in the Santa Cruz mountains, to the "largest plumes of poisoned groundwater in the United States, over 3 miles long and 180 feet deep, contaminated with xylene, toluene and other volatile organic compounds, including the chlorinated solvent trichloroethane (TCA)" that IBM left behind when manufacturing disk drives, there are some serious problems.

    O's R would suggest that we look at this first, rather than at the genetics of the parents. Birds of a feather have flocked together for centuries, with no apparent ill effects.

    1. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by HanzoSan · · Score: 1, Troll



      Haha I've heard some excuses but this one is funny, you actually think silicon valley is polluted? Try going to new york. The enviornment has nothing to do with it.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    2. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by puppetman · · Score: 1

      Wow. Glad you cleared that up. Was beginning to worry. We humans can't predict the weather accurately 3 days in advance, but you know the effects of complex chemicals on humans from the time they are conceived until autism is detected?

      "There simply hasn't been enough testing and research into the health hazards posed by low-level exposure to combinations of toxic chemicals. If anything, the experience of the semiconductor industry should be sobering -- the complexity of the chemical cocktails at use in modern high-tech industrial manufacturing is mind-boggling, and it is always getting more so. There is little chance, warn these experts, of ever catching up with the public health challenges inherent in new advances in technology, especially when the rate of change continues to accelerate." - Another quote from the .

    3. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There simply hasn't been enough testing and research into the health
      hazards posed by low-level exposure to combinations of toxic
      chemicals.


      Duh. The only way to test is to expose people (& in large numbers) to these things.

    4. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by vrmlknight · · Score: 1

      "From the New Almaden Mine in the Santa Cruz mountains, to the "largest plumes of poisoned groundwater in the United States, over 3 miles long and 180 feet deep, contaminated with xylene, toluene and other volatile organic compounds, including the chlorinated solvent trichloroethane"

      you know i do hear that they filter the water at the water plant before sending it to our homes and offices i may be wrong

      --
      This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
    5. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of the better siggestions I've heard. Reason? Brominated flame retardants (BFR's). BFR's are used in most computer equipment, office furniture etc.

      Here's the interesting part: Research show they have much in common with PCB's, a well known neurological toxin.

      Although it is too early to conclude, I'd say this may well be the reason. Now, is this a politution that you can see when you drive your car to work? No. Is it for real? Yes.

    6. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by puppetman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sorry, my friend, but that's not the case at all.

      For example, "Dr. Davis has been receiving a large number of emails from parents, who have had their children's hair analyzed for toxic chemicals. The preliminary results show that extraordinarily high levels of antimony and arsenic are being found in children with learning and behavioral disorders within the spectrum of autism." - from Crib Life.

      Also, from Preventing Harm, states that, "Animal and human studies demonstrate that a variety of chemicals commonly encountered in industry and the home can contribute to developmental, learning, and behavioral disabilities" and that "[c]ertain genes may be susceptible to or cause individuals to be more susceptible to environmental "triggers." Particular vulnerability to a chemical exposure may be the result of a single or multiple interacting genes."

      And finally, the jury is still out on the link between vaccination (especially the MMR - mumps/measles/rubella vacine) and autism. There are numerous doctors who believe their is a link, and just as many who say there is not.

      So do you really believe that environment plays no role in autism?

    7. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by ab315 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah! Neurotoxic pollution is my bet too. I would put money on heavy metal poisioning in particular. Note that susceptibility is genetically determined, e.g. via metallothionein or catalase impairment. So whether or not somebody gets brain damage is going to depend on the level and time-profile of exposure, including from the mother while in the womb too.

      See e.g. here or here or here

      People in the valley are living in a ****ing toxic waste dump!

      Might like to also ask why thimerosal, which is a mercury compound, is only now being banned from childhood vaccines. If you search the web you'll find plenty of people who say they have had success with heavy-metal chelation using DMSA+lipoic-acid as a treatment for autism. The standard heavy-metal poisioning chelation protocol of DMSA alone does not work (it does not cross the blood-brain barrier, whereas lipoic-acid does).

    8. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      chlorinated solvent trichloroethane (TCA)

      Did you know that that's the solvant used in Tipp-Ex (or whatever it's spelled). It's a white correction-fluid for typing errors. Anyway; there are people that sniff the solvant and I believe it's even addictive. It's supposed to make you very high. So maybe all those autists started to sniff Tipp-ex or glue or something. Whatever.

    9. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly it's filtered. You wouldn't want little chunks of crud in it, would you? But will a simple filter keep volatile organics out? No.

    10. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by vrmlknight · · Score: 2, Informative

      no but most Municipal Wastewater Treatment Equipment is more than a metal screen that takes chucks out of the water most plants contain such erumpent as Memcor CMF Microfiltration. The Memcor CMF-S uses a membrane with a 0.2-micron nominal pore size and demonstrates up to 6 log removal of Giardia and Cryptosporidium. A vacuum pump draws water through the membrane fibers of sub-modules submerged in the open top filter tanks. The fibers are the same polypropylene material as those used in the conventional CMF process, but the Memcor CMF-S operates under vacuum, so maximum driving pressure is only 85-100kPa. This lower pressure limit is not the disadvantage it first appears because filter cake characteristics improve at lower pressures.

      And MircoFloc Trident, the Trident Water Treatment Systems are Packaged water treatment plants designed to provide a combination of excellent performance treating surface water with space and capital cost savings. The system is provided with all the valves, controls, chemical feed and blowers. The Trident technology has been used in over 500 hundred applications including potable water, drinking water, tertiary treatment , Title 22 water reuse, and clarification filtration. It is also being used industrially for process water treatment and Pretreatment to RO. The Trident Water Treatment System design consists of four features which combine to make it the most advanced water treatment product line of its kind. These features are the Adsorption Clarifier, Mixed Media Filtration, Triton Direct Retention Underdrains and Coagulation Control. The modular Trident® A design is used for flows from 350 gpm (0.5 mgd) and up on waters with up to 100 NTU or 100 color units. The largest single steel tank module can treat 2.0 mgd and can be shipped on an ordinary trailer truck. Shipping by truck allows each factory-built module to be sent direct to the job site, which simplifies and shortens on-site construction. The Trident LP is used for the same flows as the Trident A, but are designed for moderate (30 NTU or 30 color units) quality raw water sources. The Trident® LP has a lower tank height and a smaller footprint, reducing the overall cost of the system. Each plant contains:
      --An Adsorption Clarifier(tm) combining flocculation and clarification into a single process step using less than 60% of the area normally needed for these functions
      --A Mixed Media filter using three or more granular media layered and graded downward from coarse to very fine. Solids removal is occurs throughout the entire depth of the bed.
      --Low profile underdrain screens with slots as fine as 0.002" to provide direct retention of the Mixed Media and air/water backwash. Eliminating intermediate support gravel makes more room for treatment media.
      --Aquaritrol® II microprocessor automatically modulates chemical feed to maintain desired treated water quality based on real time operations.

      I do believe that there is more stuff out there but this is all i can remeber at the time

      --
      This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
    11. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ctrl+v

    12. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > If you search the web you'll find plenty of people who say they have had success with heavy-metal chelation using DMSA+lipoic-acid as a treatment for autism.

      You mean chelation therapy: Unproven Claims and Unsound Theories?

      > Might like to also ask why thimerosal, which is a mercury compound, is only now being banned from childhood vaccines.

      Might also want to realize that autism, as it's typically diagnosed in early childhood, if it's gonna show up, is likely to show up shortly after vaccination. Nothing to do with the vaccination, of course, just dumb luck and a bit of post hoc ergo propter hoc scaremongering from the quacks.

      Misconceptions about Immunization: #9 - Vaccicnes Cause Autism

      Props once again to Stephen Barrett for the debunking.

    13. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by ab315 · · Score: 1
      Certainly most of the alternative-medicine people promoting chelation are frauds who don't know what they are doing. That does not mean that chelation is bad, per se. It would be a good reason for the average person not to undergo chelation unless they had undertaken extensive research for themselves.

      Quackwatch always has its own agenda of helping people avoid quacks. They do some useful work in that regard but it is not science.

      Note that I don't claim that the mercury theory is proven.

      I believe it is plausible, and has a reasonable theoretical basis. That is more than can be said for some of the theories from psychiatrists etc.

      Some people have reported good success, in line with what would be predicted. They did not go to quacks, they usually undertook it themselves (DMSA is relatively cheap and available without prescription). As the article notes many of the parents of these children are extremely smart and highly-qualified, so they have the ability to study the literature.

      Note also that I wouldn't claim that all cases of autism are heavy-metal poisoning, only that most cases of heavy-metal poisoning would be diagnosed as autism in today's medical culture. Note up until the 1940's the medical profession was for many years unable to explain the occurrence of acrodynia (aka "pink disease", which causes skin peeling) in babies. This was due to mercury poisioning from mercury in baby powders, but the medical profession rejected that idea for a long time because the doses involved were considered much too small to have any effect (which would be true in general, but not for those with a genetic susceptibility, probably catalase deficience in that case). After mercury was removed from baby powders the disease disappeared, and not many people have heard of it today.

      You can calculate the mercury dose from thimerosal, based on the number and timing of vaccinations, and find that a small % of the population will be getting peak concentrations up near neurotoxic levels of 1 uM.

      I think it's an interesting hypothesis and worth pursuing, since there are no bad side effects when chelation is done properly (not by quacks).

    14. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by fritter · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on copying and pasting.

      I almost wonder if this is supposed to be some kind of satire, given that you can't spell "remeber" but claim to be able to "remember" the finer points of municipal sewage treatment at the drop of a hat. But there's an old saying - "No Slashdot post two or more levels deep is funny". Thus, I'm just going to assume you're an idiot and hoped nobody else would know how to search for things on Google.

    15. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by ab315 · · Score: 1

      In the Barrett article he refers to work done in the UK by the Medical Research Council and Committee on the Safety of Medicines.

      People living in the UK know that reports from government sponsored bodies of this type can be subject to extensive political interference and should generally be taken with more than a pinch of salt.

      The interference by high-level politicians and civil-servants is why we have had an epidemic of BSE and vCJD which successive governments covered up for many years.

      The UK managed to create a completely new incurable brain-destroying disease, whose mechanism was unknown to science and which could not be eliminated by autoclaving at extreme temperaturs. The same government told people it was safe to eat the meat of infected animals, while calling in the military to carry out mass culls of hundreds of thousands of cows with the soldiers in bio-safety suits. Right now there are disused airfields across the UK which have hangars full of thousands of sealed old-drums containing burnt cow-carcus ash which is still contaminated and nobody knows to dispose of. What are we going to do with it, fire it into space?

      Basically, don't believe any medical research which comes from the UK government and don't eat any beef products from the UK (it's still dangerous).

      On the vaccine issue specifically, the UK has a socialised system of medicine in which the government pushes for cost-effective treatments rather than effective treatments. i.e. If there is an overall cost-saving for a treatment as there is with MMR (1 single shot vs 3 separate shots at different times) then the pressure will be to use that, and if a few children die or get autism well that's just bad luck for them because the government does not pay compensation and you cannot sue them. I am not against vaccination, but you cannot even choose what vaccine you want, the government forces everyone to have the MMR vaccine.

    16. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by cweber · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and don't discount food, either. I have heard from a school psychologist friend that cutting down phosphates and phosphites (less cured meat) helps hyperactive kids a lot. Likewise, there is a ton of other junk in our food that affects our moods and behavior.

    17. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > People living in the UK know that reports from government sponsored bodies of this type can be subject to extensive political interference and should generally be taken with more than a pinch of salt.

      Yahoo! Let's play Spot The Quack!

      Quacksign #23: They claim they are being persecuted by orthodox medicine and that their work is being suppressed because it's controversial.

      That is, nebulous accusations of general government fuckuppery do not imply that chelation is effective, or that MMR shots cause autism.

      > he interference by high-level politicians and civil-servants is why we have had an epidemic of BSE and vCJD which successive governments covered up for many years.

      Quacksign #23/24 again: Raises specific, but irrelevant (as regards the efficacy of chelation therapy) cases of government fuckuppery in an effort to tar all "government-approved" medicine with the same brush.

      > The UK managed to create a completely new incurable brain-destroying disease, [ ... ]

      Quacksign #24: A Vast Conspiracy, no doubt, to ...create?!? Yes, he said create CJD. Umm, but what does this have to do with chelation therapy? Or MMR?

      > Basically, don't believe any medical research which comes from the UK government and don't eat any beef products from the UK (it's still dangerous).

      More #24. Attempt to direct our fear of CJD into a mistrust of all medical research as somehow "tainted" by the Evil Conspiracy.

      Guess I'd better get myself some snake oil now, because my doctor is part of the Conspiracy!

      > On the vaccine issue specifically [ ... ] If there is an overall cost-saving for a treatment as there is with MMR (1 single shot vs 3 separate shots at different times) then the pressure will be to use that, and if a few children die or get autism well that's just bad luck for them because the government does not pay compensation and you cannot sue them.

      More of the Conspiracy. But absolutely. no. evidence that the MMR shot causes autism.

      Just the same ubstantiated allegation, this time with a different Conspiracy - the one by the Commie Pinko Bureacuratic Socialists that kill children with dangerous vaccines to save taxpayer dollars.

      I suppose that's a step up from the US version of the Conspiracy, in which Evil Capitalists in Big Pharma kill kids with dangerous vaccines to make money for their shareholders, but it still doesn't explain to my why I should believe that there's any link between MMR shots and autism.

      Score: 2 out of 25, (Or on This Top-10 list, 2/10).

      Synopsis: basically a rant about "Don't trust any medical research funded by the Evil Government Who Created CJD! They 0wn J00!"

      Rating: Tinfoil Hat.

      Recommendations for Improvement: How 'bout use the word "toxins" a few times, and provide a picture of a cute kid rocking back and forth and drooling on a T-shirt that reads "The Conspiracy Vaccinated Me Against MMR and All I Got Was Autism ism ism ism ism...." and a bit about how chelation will also save you from the mercury in your dental fillings? That'd at least get your score up into the 5-6 range.

    18. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software development is not perzactly pollution free. While it doesn't directly create pollution, it does increase it.

      At a minimum, you need to have electricity, (ignoring or punch cards) whose "creation" is often done with fossil fuels, and creates pollution.

    19. Re:Could Pollution in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by mondoterrifico · · Score: 0

      OMG funniest thing ive read in awhile.

  18. This is not a disease.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    And the only reason it's classified as such is because the non-Asperger's people incorrectly consider themselves 'normal'. What we're seeing here is partly resentment of the way technically minded people have moved from being something of a joke to the people who invent and maintain the modern world.

    Love or Hate him, virtually everyone of those articles about Gates having Asperger's use it to sneer - I guess technically-handicapped have got to try and make themselves feel superior again somehow.

    This perception of Asperger's is similar in someways to Dyslexia - also perceived of as a handicap or disease but in fact perfectly normal. Some recent research indicates that a common cause of dyslexia seems to happen because of the selective death of particular brain cells - but the flip side of this is that these people seem to be extremely good at visual-spatial tasks and particularly making mental maps. It's postulated that it would be a great advantage to a tribe of hunter/gatherers to have a few such members among their company.

    Similarly to Asperger's, in the age of the purly written word dyslexia became a handicap - but as our use of media becomes richer and more varied increasingly the ability to think visually is becoming an advantage again (and we have spell-checkers now too!)

    Bottom line - evolution has equipped the human mind to come in many different flavours - it's our definition of 'normal' which is incorrect, not people with Asperger's, Dyslexia or any on of a myriad of other different mental gifts.

    1. Re:This is not a disease.. by footility · · Score: 1

      I'm mildly dyslexic, and IMO, it is a misconception
      that dyslexics have trouble spelling, but maybe I
      just overcompensate. I personally have trouble
      reading things that do not _fully_ engage my brain;
      it /literally/ puts me to sleep. I have found
      that wearing colored sunglasses, particularly blue,
      enables me to read without falling asleep. However,
      this still does not help a bit with my
      comprehension; by the time I turn the page, it's as
      if I'd never read the previous page. Frustrating.

      In short, I cannot learn literally. I have to
      learn things conceptually. Words are not concepts.
      They /are/ representations of concepts, but I guess
      that is not strong enough for my brain to create
      the necessary biochemical connections necessary
      to have knowledge.

      Things I actually do remember, I remember
      forever.

      Oh, btw, I'm a programmer fluent in 7 (computer)
      languages, and generally become productive with
      a language in about five days. Note that I did
      not say /expert/ in five days ;-).

      lisdexicly,
      b

      --
      What f*ing box!?!?
    2. Re:This is not a disease.. by vrmlknight · · Score: 1

      mod parent up this is very true while I have mild dyslexia I do not have problems written or otherwise confuse colors sometimes and occasionally my left and right but all I have to do is think is someone tells me to turn left if I don't think about it I naturally go right again with colors if im talking about a color it may take me a 1/2 second before I say the name of the color because im visualizing it in my head I have to make sure that I say red instead of green I know the difference but its in the going from my head to the vocal chords

      --
      This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
    3. Re:This is not a disease.. by peripatetic_bum · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh my.

      I see that once again, people who consider themselves experts in one field have decided that their opinion is expert in another.

      Let's put one thing straight, if you have ever met a child with Aspenrger's Sydnrome, it is not mild, it not something that has been defined as abnormal simply because the rest of 'society' doesnt get it.

      It is in the DSM IV (of psychiatry) because it is a devastating neurobiological syndrome for a kid to have. Please dont fucking compare it to Dyslexia. You insult those with Asperger's and those with Dyslexia.

      Anyway, please look it up, look at

      http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/

      --

      Sigs are dangerous coy things

    4. Re:This is not a disease.. by pyramid+termite · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the only reason it's classified as such is because the non-Asperger's people incorrectly consider themselves 'normal'. What we're seeing here is partly resentment of the way technically minded people have moved from being something of a joke to the people who invent and maintain the modern world.

      There's something to be said for the neurologically typical (NT) having labelled the rest of the people "weird" or "geeky" or "autistic". I myself believed that my problems in life had been caused by people hating intelligent people or people who were academically successful. For 44 years, I could comfort myself with the thought that most people were locking out the more intelligent of us because they were acting on some kind of stupid animal instinct to oppress the "other". It was a convenient thing to think, as I didn't have to confront the other things going on, such as my underachieving compared to my potential, such as my not having more than one or two real friends at any time in my life, such as feeling like a stranger and an alien in the place I grew up in.

      In the last 5 weeks or so, I've gotten the shock of my life.

      My daughter is almost six and is currently going to a Preprimary Impaired program. At the first parent teacher conference, the school psychologist asked me if I had ever heard of Autism. I said, yeah, and mentioned Rainman ... She explained that it was a spectrum disorder, meaning that it could range anywhere from being mild, to being like Rainman, to even worse. She described the symptoms - repeating words all the time, running away from people, failing to interact/play with peers, repetitious hand movements, etc. etc. We agreed that she seemed to be having a real problem communicating - she reads at a 1st or 2nd grade level and talks like a 2 year old. She is currently being scheduled for the observations necessary to certify her as being autistic.

      That was one hell of a shock, to realize that my kid might never have a normal life, or become a self supporting adult. (I think she'll adjust to her condition, but I can't be sure.) I immediately started researching this online and at the library. Temple Grandin's book "Thinking in Pictures" was an excellent account by an autistic woman of how she percieves the world and how she has managed to adjust to it successfully. Donna William's "Nobody, Nowhere", "Somebody, Somewhere" and "Like Color to the Blind" are harrowing and deep accounts of how a woman gradually came to terms with her autism and the world around her. The best web resource is the "Oops, Wrong Planet Syndrome" webpage at http://www.isn.net/~jypsy, which has hundreds of links, including webpages written by those with autism or Asperger's Syndrome.

      A week ago Sunday, I was at that page and having recalled that the school psychologist had mentioned Asperger's as another possibility as to what was going on with my daughter, so I decided to follow some links and read what the doctors and the patients had to say about it. As I read, interest turned to discomfort, and discomfort slowly turned to shock.

      Asperger's Syndrome sufferers (Aspies) were often highly intelligent. Well, I'm highly intelligent, but ... Aspies had trouble socializing with people beginning in childhood. Well, I had, but, you know, the people I went to school with were such jerks anyway ... Apsies had poor communication skills with people, often sounding like "little professors" with odd, grating voices. Well, um, they had called me "Brainiac" in school. Aspies had some narrow, almost compulsive interests, which may stay the same, or change - one described his hobby of looking at maps for hours and hours and then spending more hours drawing maps of imaginary countries and cities. I gulped, remembering that I used to do the same thing. Aspies had few friends from childhood on and people thought they were rude and too direct. Well ... I looked at the screen with tears in my eyes, recognizing myself.

      I had Asperger's Syndrome.

      Somehow, I'd managed to cope with it, enough to be able to hold a good job and have a family and stay sane. I'd even managed to mellow a little and get along a little better with people, although my general instinct is to avoid people whenever possible; if I want to talk about things with people, I can just go give myself a silly name like "Pyramid Termite" and go online to webboard like Slashdot. That's sort of relating. I guess.

      Right now, I'm working up the nerve to talk to a psychologist. I wanted to, anyway, so I could understand my daughter's autism and how to deal with it, but now I need to understand my own.

      So, alright, Slashdotters, it might be genetic, or pollution caused, or have something to do with the MMR vaccine. Hell, I don't know. I have some special abilities, but there are people who also have them who aren't on the autistic spectrum. If I'm the future of humanity or a member of the Master Race, let me tell you, I don't feel like it. I feel sad and scared and proud of myself and regretful that no one, least of all me, understood what I was going through until now. I can't tell you what it's like to be a high functioning autistic person because I don't know that for myself yet. It's going to take some time, and meanwhile, I've got to keep working at my job and guide my daughter through her problems.

      It's said that 1/3 to 1/2 of Aspies go undiagnosed. If there's a problem in your life with alienation, never having any friends, relating poorly to people, etc., take a good look. Like me, you could have Apserger's or autism and not even know it.

    5. Re:This is not a disease.. by rve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have no idea how unhappy most people with autism related disorders are.

      All the things that nearly everyone considers the most important things in life, such as friendship, love, social acceptance, relationships are made incredibly difficult. This is not just the prejudice of society, the attempts at social interaction by people with low emotional intelligence really are incredibly annoying, and often downright hurtful.

      Autism related disorders do not make someone more intelligent or more apt at technical skills. It is just that certain technical- or scientific fields are the only way in which some of them can find a place in society. The ones that don't have these skills, often end up as the smelly homeless people you step over in the street.

      Neither is autism a prerequisition for success in a technical profession. Believe it or not, most highly intelligent people are also highly social. Looking at students in university, the most successful ones are usually the highly social ones, and *not* the complete and utter spods.

      Limited social intelligence and fine motor control can make life a living hell, especially for kids. It is a disability that has a very severe impact on the quality of life. To suggest it is merely a 'perception problem' of society is no different from claiming deafness isn't a disability, but our cultures reliance on sound is.

    6. Re:This is not a disease.. by rve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Never try to self diagnose...

    7. Re:This is not a disease.. by Eagle7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ya know... I don't think you should worry about what you had. If anything, you should feel a little proud that you made it ok. In the end, it doesn't matter if it was other people not liking you, or a disease, or a sadistic god sprinkling dust on your little clay statue. You were faced with a problem, you adapted to it, and you won. You might not have known the cause, but you still came out on top. That's about all a pshycologist can tell you.

      What is important is your daughter. She's going to have a heck of a time, and she's going to need all the understanding, patience, and love that you can muster. Take all that knowledge and experience that you have from your life, all those memories of how you felt, and what you liked, and what made you feel better, and channel it into being that best father for your her. And making her life as rich and worthwhile as possible, regardless of what her prognosis ends up as.

      You can look back at your past and analyse yourself and feel pity, or sadness or whatever. Or you can take this disease that you had/have, and turn it into a heroic trait. Use that understanding and apply it to your daughter, and become a hero for her. Do that and you won't have to worry about the ways that your physiology isn't normal, becuase you will have lept beyond the norm in the one area in which you are handicapped - interacting with another person.

      --
      _sig_ is away
    8. Re:This is not a disease.. by dagashi · · Score: 1

      I've always thought doctors must be over representated among hypochondriacs!
      They feel a little thirsty and go "Oh shit, now I've got diabetes."

    9. Re:This is not a disease.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I find increases in straight autism rather concerning, increases in asperger's is something I find encouraging, and perhaps a sign of the next stage of evolution of our species. You know, beings that devote their brains to figuring things out, instead of devoting all that grey matter to worrying about what clique we're in, whether the paint job on the car matches our shoes, or what we're going to do to people who're in the wrong club.

      Let's face it: members of the human race have spent most of the last few million years doing little more than sniffing each others' asses and banging each other over the head with rocks for looking different.

      It ain't surprising that the butt-sniffing mainstream would view an upswing in asperger's to be a threat. After all, the species on its way out always views the superior species with some amount of fear. And rightly so.

    10. Re:This is not a disease.. by Amokscience · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hope I don't come across as a clod but ...

      As a person who fits this description to a T (how ironic), I'm wondering why you're so panicked? Your daughter's situation notwithstanding, you seem to have done fine so far in life so why the "Oh my God! I'm a broken person!" feelings? The 'symptoms' also appear to encompass most of the intelligent introverted personality types (INTJ, INTP, etc.). I'm rather amused that I might have Aspergers.

      --
      Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
    11. Re:This is not a disease.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the WIRED article: "The old line "insanity is hereditary, you get it from your kids" has a twist in the autistic world. It has become commonplace for parents to diagnose themselves as having Asperger's syndrome, or to pinpoint other relatives living on the spectrum, only after their own children have been diagnosed."

      Interesting in light of your comments!

    12. Re:This is not a disease.. by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1
      life is a spectrum disease, get over it, all of you. diversity happens.

    13. Re:This is not a disease.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good for you but I am too and have a hard time spelling, writing, remembering what I read especially if it uses words sparsely filled with knowledge, but for factual information I can remember it very well. Also I get get light headed when reading, I can relate things in 3d, severely hindered skills in concentration but I tend to work better with music, the television and no other people around. I have a bizarre logical ability, I solve math and computer problems in ways that nobody else does and upon looking at them determine them incorrect until running them. Yes we pigeon hole disabilities but we all have weird and different combinations of symptoms that are very generalized.

    14. Re:This is not a disease.. by gnovos · · Score: 2

      Asperger's Syndrome sufferers (Aspies) were often highly intelligent. Well, I'm highly intelligent, but ... Aspies had trouble socializing with people beginning in childhood. Well, I had, but, you know, the people I went to school with were such jerks anyway ... Apsies had poor communication skills with people, often sounding like "little professors" with odd, grating voices. Well, um, they had called me "Brainiac" in school. Aspies had some narrow, almost compulsive interests, which may stay the same, or change - one described his hobby of looking at maps for hours and hours and then spending more hours drawing maps of imaginary countries and cities. I gulped, remembering that I used to do the same thing. Aspies had few friends from childhood on and people thought they were rude and too direct. Well ... I looked at the screen with tears in my eyes, recognizing myself.

      I had Asperger's Syndrome.


      Um, I think you do have a syndrome, but it's not Asperger's... it's Gullibility. Don't let the pop psycologists push thier drivel into your head.

      Those "symtoms" you describe are identical to *every single* intelligent child I have ever know or met, ever. Every kid my age with imagination was drawing maps for D&D (before it was "evil") for hours on end. Everyone was trying to sound "older" than they were (little professors), becuase they wanted to sound intelligent and mature. Everyone who is intelligent gets picked on by the true "mentally challenged" jerks during school.

      You are/were *normal*. The brain dead kids that do nothing but stare at the TV mother-teacher, who's English doesn't stretch past the "I tot I taw a puddy cat" stage, and who is too insecure to reject cruel "friends" becuase they are afraid of being alone, THEY are the ones with the mental disease.

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    15. Re:This is not a disease.. by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

      I certainly wish your daughter and your family the best. However, I think you might be too quick to see Aspergers (or any other medical condition) in yourself.

      I realize you're paraphrasing, but if we use your list above, then a heckuva lot of people suddenly have Aspergers. Pretty much just about every introspective, quiet youngester who didn't quite fit in, but who eventually grew out of it. I suppose it's possible that all those kids (including myself) really do have a neurological problem, but it seems more likely that they're perfectly normal kids, and that the description of the alleged condition is too broad to be meaningful.

      I don't have the expertise or knowledge to comment on the medical details, but I get skeptical when the lists of indicators and symptoms sound start to more like horoscopes than medical diagnoses. "LIBRA: You display great powers of concetration. You are an intelligent and thoughtful person with high standards. Others often don't appreciate you or your interests..."

    16. Re:This is not a disease.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For personal reasons I'd prefer to post anonymously - I hope it isn't held against me.

      FWIW - for a few years I've been pretty certain that I'm Asperger's as well. This isn't a horoscope-level insight. Those of you who know what I'm talking about will understand. The syndrome, when it is there in an unambiguous form, stands out as a defining vector in your life. I admit I'm purely self-diagnosed, but it just doesn't matter from my perspective.

      It's something I was battling for decades before the syndrome was even recognized. I've fought with it long and hard, and the truth is that for those of us on the less affected end (who can recognize it and make a decision to deal with it) it CAN be made manageable to some degree. I'm not going to say I'm cured because I sure as hell am not.

      I've made enormous progress with my socialization problem by means of one simple thing: practice, and tons of it. You have to go out with the direct intent of improving it. It can be done - your brain is not purely hard-wired for this, learning is possible. Psychotherapy in some form helps as well, provided it is properly directed - for me the primary benefit was in a group setting where I could get immediate feedback on what my body language was telling other people and on how accurate my own interpretations (or complete lack thereof) of their subtle cues were. In a strong sense we're socially colorblind, but you can develop aids to get around it.

      In fact sometimes these days I actually impress myself by reading the emotional subtext in a conversation in near real-time. Even basic social engineering has become possible - I've been at it long enough now that I can very nearly pass for normal (he's a bit strange, but he's friendly and funny...).

      It can be done. It just takes hard work and a decision to make the hard choices, go the tough route, and expose yourself to the very things that are the most difficult and threatening.

    17. Re:This is not a disease.. by pyramid+termite · · Score: 2

      Thanks for your post. Good advice; I'll be taking it.

    18. Re:This is not a disease.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, I've got 2 friends in med school, who enjoy telling me about the stuff they're studying and watching me go into a hypochondriac panic. In the past few months I've had mono, herpes, inhalation anthrax, diabetes, and now this. I might actually have the last one in one of the milder varieties, but I haven't been sick for a month, weird sores other than acne, my lungs haven't filled with fluid, and I haven't gone blind and needed toes amputated. And among med students anyway, yes, there is a large representation of hypochondriacs from medical professions.

    19. Re:This is not a disease.. by Talinom · · Score: 1

      If you think that you have diabetes, you go to the physical doctor and have him check for physical symptoms to a physical problem. They can help you live with the problem, and in some of the mild forms, help you without having to take insulin. My dad is diabetic and I make sure to look for the signs regularly and go in to see the physical doctor once a year or so just to make sure.

      If you think that you have some emotional trauma or problems from your past (think Titus on Fox for example) then you either:
      A) Live in denial that there is a problem.
      B) Go to see someone on learning HOW to deal with those problems.

      Going to a psychologist or psychiatrist is not a bad thing. If you didn't learn in school how to do fractions, years later you would have a problem doing simple math. If you went to a math tutor you could diagnose what you DID NOT LEARN and go about fixing that problem.

      Just giving someone the answer and telling them that everything is OK now that they know the answer cannot help in learning emotional responses, like learning math. Inevitably they will face a similar problem and not know how to cope with it. It is this that psychologists do. They don't tell you (or shouldn't) what the problem is. Rather they do what I call the circle dance. An example, using a physical problem, would be you go to the doctor because your foot hurts (bear with me, this takes a while):
      Doctor: So, tell me about your foot.
      You: It hurts.
      Doctor: I gathered that. Does it hurt all of the time?
      You: No, and I have looked quite a bit at my foot. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. It looks normal from the outside, I can push and prod it and it is just fine. And sometimes the other foot hurts. I don't know what is going on.
      Doctor: Are you in a particular place when your foot hurts or does it happen without warning?
      You: Hmmm. (long pause) I guess that it only hurts when I am outside getting into my car. But not all of the time.
      Doctor: What do you typically do with your feet?
      You: Well, the first thing that I do is take a shower with them. Then I put on socks and shoes... Say, I've looked there before. I don't think this is being very productive.
      Doctor: Trust me on this. What else do you do with them?
      You: Ok, I've looked at my feet and nothing is wrong. I've looked at my shoes and socks and there is nothing wrong. I don't get it.
      Doctor: Tell me about getting into your car. What do you do with your feet?
      You: I put one foot in front of the other, open the car door, and get in.
      Doctor: Do your feet hurt when you are in the car?
      You: Sometimes they are still throbbing when I get in the car, but the pain subsides after a minute or two.
      Doctor: So your feet hurt when you are standing next to the car?
      You: Yes, I guess that might be it. Do you think that I have a problem with getting into the car?
      Doctor: That might be something to think about. Let's go to your house and watch you get into the car.
      You: Ok, I'm standing right next to my car at my house. My left foot hurts. Can I move it?
      Doctor: In a minute. I know it hurts, but you need to work through this. What do you know about your feet.
      You: Well, they are in my socks, which are in my shoes, which cushion me from the ground... Damn my foot hurts.
      Doctor: Can you just lift up that foot and balance there for a second? Good. Since your foot doesn't hurt now, can you think of anything that might be causing the pain?
      You: Much better, thank you. Um, no.
      Doctor: You walk on the ground, right?
      You: Yes.
      Doctor: Is there any possibility that the ground might make your foot hurt?
      You: No. I am wearing all sorts of cushioning and the ground is flat. Nothing can cause the pain.
      Doctor: Are you sure the ground is flat?
      You: Yes. Let me show you. Look down here at the ground. See how everything is flat except for that... pointy... rock...
      Doctor: Go on.
      You: I can't believe it. My foot hurt because there was a rock on the ground next to where I park my car. I feel so stupid.
      Doctor: We've made good progress. I'll see you next week to work through your feelings of tennis elbow.

      That is it. That is a therapy session, or at least one like I go through.

      It wasn't the guy's fault that he didn't know to look down. He lacked the skills to work through the problem himself. He didn't know that looking down was a possibility. Now that he knows that, he can find things like nails, wood, and other obstacles and steer clear of them, or know how to deal with them if there is a problem.

      There is no shame in having a problem. The shame is in never doing anything to try to solve it.

      --
      "Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
    20. Re:This is not a disease.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm unhappy just to read your post.

    21. Re:This is not a disease.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, even more so because it true in both respects.

      I frequently get out of a session an ask myself, "What the hell did I spend the last hour resolving?" Yet, in the macroscopic view, I am making continual progress.

      "I know what I am doing about my problems, what are you doing about yours?"

      And if someone says they don't have *any* problems then you know they do.

    22. Re:This is not a disease.. by ZephyrQ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just finished a meeting with the speech therapist at my son's elementary school--he was tested because he was having problems in his kindergarten classroom--such as not finishing his work ("though it is done wonderfully" the teacher reports), have problems interacting with his peers (he doesn't like to be touched), and other small things.
      During the meeting the teacher leaned over to me and asked if I had considered autism as a possible problem with my son.
      Of course I did! I **did** read the article in Wired...and am myself a special education teacher who, by the way, have dealt with *true* aspergers children.
      Now, besides the fact that I thought the teacher was a little off her rocker--she means well but her 50+ years of teaching experience might make her a bit long in the tooth--I also have been watching myself as much as my son lately.
      During the meeting, my wife pointed out that many of my son's behaviors that would classify him as autistic she has observed in me. Examples:
      --> My son doesn't like to interact with his peers: Big surprise--neither do I.
      --> My son would rather stay inside at recess and do his homework: again, I will stay after work 3+ hours to finish my paperwork just so I can sleep well that night!
      --> My son can't finish his work on time, but while his classmates are still working on the letter K my son is reading Dr. Seuss to his mother before he goes to bed.
      --> My son has problems communicating with his teacher: I just had my job review and the only 'black' mark was that I didn't kiss enough arse with the CEO of the company I teach for. Otherwise I was a great teacher (thier words, not mine).
      --> My son has to follow the same routine every day or gets very out of sorts and frustrated: guess what--my wife pointed out how much grief I give her if my morning routine is intruded upon.

      Bottom line: Many of the things that I dealt with as a child (and even an adult!) are the very things that make my child a frustrating, easily upset, highly intelligent problem solver who will have to travel the same road I did to maturity--dealing with bullies, teachers who weren't as intelligent as yourself, learning how NOT to offend the very people who give you grades/sign your paychecks.

      The asbergers that is being talked about here isn't a disease or disability, it is a gift set that can be *very* lucrative in the long run...

    23. Re:This is not a disease.. by tiedye · · Score: 1

      My parents tried that. Teachers too.
      It didn't cure me of Aspegers.

      It may have helped make me
      a masochistic Aspie.

      If so, it was good for something.

      &&

  19. How do you know their parents didnt have this? by HanzoSan · · Score: 2



    Remember, when there parents were growing up, it most likely didnt have a name, there was no treatment, how do you know this isnt the normal development cycle that their genetics go through?

    Really, we dont, but instead of teachers complaining, i think teachers should learn to teach, and not just teach the average kid, but teach every kid.

    Now its true classes have gotten bigger so a teacher cannot spend the time anymore, but with all this technology you mean to tell me we still teach in such a way? And kids who are hard to teach we drug?

    We can do better than that. I'm not saying give ever student laptops, but really, why are we still using chalk boards and paper, wheres all this educational software? Why arent GNU and Open source programmers starting some kinda open education movement? I say if we have computers and are in the information age, its time to get with the times, spend alittle money and invest it properly in schoools, and really, kids in silicon valley have no excuse at all, I bet they all have rich parents and can afford tutors, and laptops, and whatever they need.

    So why the article?

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:How do you know their parents didnt have this? by MiTEG · · Score: 1

      The article adresses this and says "Anyone who says this is due to better diagnostics has his head in the sand." I never met the parents, so I wouldn't be able to tell you whether they had this, but I did meet the kids. I can tell you, it wouldn't matter if there were only 5 kids in a class, it still wouldn't work with these kids. They need INDIVIDUAL attention.

      No, class sizes have not gotten bigger, they have gotten smaller (at least in California in grades K-3). While 10+ years ago classes could be as large as 35+ kids, now the cap is at 20. So you can't blame it on larger classes.

      And no, not all kids in the Silicon Valley are rich, about 9% of the county's population is considered below the poverty line.

      I do agree with you on one point, the programmer community should get more involved in the education process.

      --
      The future isn't what it used to be.
    2. Re:How do you know their parents didnt have this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, 9% below the poverty line? Jesus. That's pretty much the minimum -- the "natural" poverty rate.

  20. Re: false representation of the logic involved by HydroPhonic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The "conclusion" that has been [almost] reached is that the cause of the weirdness in Nick is the same as the cause of the similar (attenuated) weirdness in each of his parents. The suggestion is genetic predisposition. The parents' occupations are effects, not causes.

  21. Re:Definitely bad. Definitely bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think this was a troll; it was a (poor) attempt at humor. Didn't any moderators see the movie Rain Man?

    I actually laughed when I saw this post, but I guess it's kinda annoying how it quotes the whole damn routine.

  22. high IQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    those with Asperger's syndrome have average - or even very high - IQs
    Software developers at Silicon Valley are the smartest people on earth.
    Male Software Developer + Female Software Developer = Little Child Software Developer.
    So if Asperger's syndrome is related to Hight IQs there's an easy solution:
    Move Microsoft to Silicon Valley!

  23. Article makes sense, you don't... by Carnage4Life · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It looks like you read the first few paragraphs of the article and rushed to post your curt dismissal of the article in a what is now a slashdot clichè response.


    Premise: "Nick" is acting weird.

    Premise: His parents are software engineers.

    Conclusion: Nick's behavior is an effect of his parents' occupation.


    Let's explore your simple minded interpretations of the article using some of the context from the article.
    1. People with autism show extreme ability in some area of scientific or artistic endeavor but extreme retardation in basic human social and communication skills (i.e. some can barely speak).

    2. Asperger's syndrome is a milder form of autism where people have less of both extremes than autism.

    3. Software development is one of the few fields where extreme ability in technical tasks and an inability to socialize properly are welcome and in fact may be encouraged as being part of the "culture".

    4. Silicon Valley is home to some of the most talented (and eccentric) software developers and probably has more software developers per square mile than most other places in the world.

    5. The rise in autistic cases in Silicon valley has been rather dramatic and has also coincided with the recent dotcomm boom and the influx of programmers to the Silicon Valley area.

    6. Since autism has been shown to be a genetic disease, isn't it likely that when people with mild cases of autism mate their child will more than likely be born with some degree of autism ?
    1. Re:Article makes sense, you don't... by Anonymous+Pancake · · Score: 0, Interesting
      People with autism show extreme ability in some area of scientific or artistic endeavor but extreme retardation in basic human social and communication skills (i.e. some can barely speak).



      Actually, many people with autism show NO extreme abilities at all, and if they do, they have no way of communicating them to us.

    2. Re:Article makes sense, you don't... by TummyX · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      Software development is one of the few fields where extreme ability in technical tasks and an inability to socialize properly are welcome and in fact may be encouraged as being part of the "culture".


      You mean linux programming, not software engineering. Socialisation is an important part of software engineering.

    3. Re:Article makes sense, you don't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a *very* small portion of people with autism show any kind of savant like abilitys. More often then not autism is a completly disabiling disease.

    4. Re:Article makes sense, you don't... by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 5, Insightful
      A scary proportion of the (admittedly early) comments I've read here seem to come from people willing to dismiss a lot of this science as bunkum, perhaps because they feel they need to "defend" being geek.

      Many doctors and teachers are diagnosing kids at ADHD because they have too many kids in a class to manage properly.
      ...
      why not just accept a few things, first, everyone learns diffrent.
      ...
      Doctors are quick to put some name on somenoe whos just not the norm.
      I'll probably get tarred as flamebait for this, but seriously you people need to look beyond your own nose.

      Whether you realise it or not, there are talented and dedicated scientists at work figuring out the things that you seem to be already quite certain about. Declaring that you know all the answers isn't going to help anybody figure out what's behind autism. There seems to be a case for more research. Well-meaning attitudes like yours can have the effect of reducing funding, if enough people think they "already know what's going on".
      --
      "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
    5. Re:Article makes sense, you don't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget the Rain Man crap you see in Hollywood films. So called "savant" qualities in individuals with these types of disorders are EXTREMELY rare to begin with, and they are much more likely to appear in those with Asperger's. The main difference between Asperger's and Autism is the verbal skills of the child - autistic children have virtually no vocabulary, as described in another case later in the article. Personally, it's difficult for me to see how the first child could be diagnosed with Asperger's either. His level of functioning appeared to be very high, and he must have been interested in telling the reporter about his computer world. This is pretty high level social functioning for someone who supposedly has this sort of disorder.

    6. Re:Article makes sense, you don't... by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      How, pray tell, does socialization help with software development? I'd say ability in technical matters helps more.

      Just another troll. Sigh.

    7. Re:Article makes sense, you don't... by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      One would think that a knowledge of social interactions would lead to a developer who can write software that people want. How much do you want to bet that Dick Stallman never would have written an Instant Messanger tool. But if you count the number of people who use IM, they probably out number 100:1 (or more) the total of all the people who use Emacs & gcc.

    8. Re:Article makes sense, you don't... by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      Speaking of instant messaging, have you ever heard of the unix talk program? It could very well have been one of the first chat programs created, and it's part of unix. RMS wants to make a unix-workalike. Use your head.

      By the way, you don't have to be an extrovert to know that most people would like to be more connected to each other so they can talk about more insignificant stuff.

    9. Re:Article makes sense, you don't... by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      'talk' is seriously different than any of the IM programs out there currently. Compare the feature sets, that's the point.

    10. Re:Article makes sense, you don't... by TummyX · · Score: 1

      Uh. Because software engineering is like any other engineering. It usually means development in groups and thus socialisation skills.

      That's why I said he should have said linux programming/hacking and not software ENGINEERING.

      The petty bickering among linux developers just shows the lack of skills even in an electronic communications forum.

      Maybe you should take a paper in software engineering and discover that it is about much more than technical skill.

    11. Re:Article makes sense, you don't... by jthill · · Score: 1
      The rise in autistic cases in Silicon valley has been rather dramatic and has also coincided with the recent dotcomm boom and the influx of programmers to the Silicon Valley area.
      But, the article also says the rise is global. I don't think it's geeks evolving like some space alien from humans' breasts. I think there are too many people on this planet, and the absolute lack of places for most children to find a whole day's peace and solitude (with, at a young age, or without, later) their parents is pushing more children towards self-isolation.

      I did the SQL*Net V2 address space (all of the design, about half the implementation) on MVS. I read Knuth to relax, sometimes. I'm a geek, and proud of it. But if my seven month (this Wed.) old son starts disconnecting from his surroundings in a couple of years, I'll know there's something wrong.

      That unaware-of-body-language stuff, the avoids-eye-contact stuff, is a deadly sign in two-year-old children. They still need human guidance to wipe their asses, let alone find their way in the world. I expect there's a geek-pack of genes, too. But if toddlers reject human contact it's because something's broke. Maybe it's them, maybe it's us, I don't know.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
  24. Real numbers by MiTEG · · Score: 5, Informative

    The BBC has an interesting article that gives some real numbers. The article says that about "pervasive developmental disorders" are running at a rate of about 46 per 10,000, and full out autism is about 17 per 10,000.

    --
    The future isn't what it used to be.
    1. Re:Real numbers by CommunistTroll · · Score: 0, Troll

      The problem with the article is that it doesn't consider the underlying economic pressures on labor movement.

      The rate of Ausbergers in the Silicon Valley tech industry is probably higher then the BBC figures because those people make ideal corporate slaves... just fill them up with Jolt and watch them code!

      Talk about pollution etc is just a red herring - look for the economic incentives.

  25. It's the MHZ man! by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    Our team has been secretly doing tests on sperm and it's computer users.

    We've found that after we broke 100 Mhz that we were stepping into a new reality. Some of our kids may be mutated because of the frequency produced by the CPU [or computer brain].

    We hope this doesn't have a lasting effect on normal citizens, but as more sophisticated humans evolve they will naturally take over the world.

    Hope this doesn't worry anyone.

    R. J. Reynolds

    1. Re:It's the MHZ man! by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      Yet another reason to use computers that give higher performance with lower MHz ;-)

  26. Good point but by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    If thats true, why do people treat autism like its a disease, when its just genetics.

    Eistien for example was Austistic, or at least he would be if he were in school today.

    Instead of focusing on labeling people and giving them drugs, we should focus on how to teach these people in the way they understand best, scientific and technical, perhaps they need 1 on 1 attention instead of an entire class, but if they end up becoming the next einstiens is it worth it?

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Good point but by Preposterous+Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
      why do people treat autism like its a disease, when its just genetics

      There are plenty of serious diseases that are "just genetics". PKU, sickle-cell anemia, even things like an elevated predisposition to breast cancer are "just genetics".

      While I agree with your conclusion that labels and drugs are not the answer, I don't see how it's relevant whether a disease's origins are genetic or not. In some ways you could even argue that genetic oddities should get *more* attention than ones that are more behavioral, given that you have control over your behavior but not over your genes...

      --

      "Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
    2. Re:Good point but by protonman · · Score: 1

      If thats true, why do people treat autism like its a disease, when its just genetics.

      Hehehe. Just genetics. Funny little man. I've heard people say cancer is hereditary. Go figure.

      --
      The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends.
    3. Re:Good point but by Marcus+Brody · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If thats true, why do people treat autism like its a disease, when its just genetics.

      WTF does that mean? There are many inherited diseases. For example, Thallasemia - the most common monogenic (single gene) disorder in the world. Or sickle cell disease. Or Cyctic fibrosis. Or Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Or Prader-Willi Syndrome. Or DiGeorge syndrome. Or Angelmann syndrome. I could go on....

      All these are considered "syndromes" or "Diseases", despite the fact thay are at least in part "genetic". In fact, many of the worlds most common diseases (including autism) are the result of a combination of environmental and inherited factors - so called "multifactorial" disorders. Such as diabetes, heart disease, or cancer.

      Instead of focusing on labeling people and giving them drugs

      Labelling people is actually pretty important step of helping them. For example:

      Doctor1: "this man need's help"
      Doctor2: "Whats wrong with him?"
      Doctor1: "Er, he's got that thing, you know, the doobree, where they are, er, a bit shy. Talk funny, oh c'mon... you must know it!"

      Who said we were just giving them drugs? From the article

      "In the last 20 years, significant advances have been made in developing methods of behavioral training that help autistic children find ways to communicate. These techniques, however, require prodigious amounts of persistence, time, money, and love. Though more than half a century has passed since Kanner and Asperger first gave a name to autism, there is still no known cause, no miracle drug, and no cure. "

      if they end up becoming the next einstiens is it worth it?

      Yes. There's no point in being a genius if you are unable to communicate your idea's. Or if you are isolated, unhappy and socially inept. I would much rather be socially included in society, than be a genius outsider.

    4. Re:Good point but by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      Alcoholism is believed, by some, to be genetic as well. Given the attitude of your comments and overuse of emphasis (quotes, bold quotes), you wouldn't be posting this from a bar, would you? :D

      ------

      [McP]KAAOS

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    5. Re:Good point but by mcpkaaos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would much rather be socially included in society, than be a genius outsider.

      If you ask me, anyone willing to give up uniqueness and individuality for comfort needs more help than nearly anyone I can think of. I find it shameful that people are willing to dismiss or hide their difference from those around them for fear of acceptance. What a boring place this would be if everyone felt that way! My opinion is that your flaws, whether they be genetic or otherwise, are what set you apart from the blind hordes of modern culture (read: nameless faces.) How else could you expect to really know yourself?

      Besides, the expression of genius is not necessarily more fruitful through communication with other people. In fact, most original expression is often misinterpreted or not even understood at all. Think of the countless musicians, thinkers, poets, et al who we only now have begun to study with enough depth to even hope to grasp their point!

      Ultimately, it seems to me that for those who one might label genius, a solitary existence will always outweigh that of the mob, where individuality is feared and discouraged.

      Just my 2 pesos, not meant to be a flame or an insult.

      --------

      [McP]KAAOS

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    6. Re:Good point but by Marcus+Brody · · Score: 2

      A good point, well made - I concede.

      However, (...there always has to be a "however,".../tangent) I guess what I was trying to get across is that helping these people is not necessarily at the expense of their individuality. For example, I have (and still do, on occasion) suffered from depression. I would agree with you that this "flaw" is what makes me part of who I am. It has allowed my insights and perspectives I would never have otherwise. I consider myself pretty *special* or unique in my thinking (don't we all...). However, I am darn thankful for no longer suffering from serious depression. Not helping someone in this state is not fair (see my above post). Helping them is not necessarily at the expense of their unique abilities, and IMHO it can often enhance peoples gifts and allow their full expression

    7. Re:Good point but by 198348726583297634 · · Score: 1

      The point, I think, is that autistic people aren't just going to be outcasts like the smart kids were in school, eg., able to adjust and fit into a more welcoming social group like university- autistic people may not have an ability to communicate, period. People with severe autism cannot express themselves, and it's not that they're different, it's that they're crippled. I had a friend for many years whose little brother was autistic, and he didn't express any savant abilities (not all autistic people are "idiot savants," you know), he just didn't act like a normal child. He didn't laugh, didn't play, wouldn't make eye contact. He'd raise his voice to a single sustained yell and he'd flail his arms around. I'm not making light- this was the extent of his interaction with his world. And the thing about autistic people is, there _is_ a mind in there, but it's locked away from the world by the disease. Hardly how I think any genius would want to be.

    8. Re:Good point but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suffered from a major depression for several years. Or at least I am pretty sure it would have been labeled as such seeing as how I was not "treated" for it. I got myself out of it in time. I did not need help.

    9. Re:Good point but by Linux+Ate+My+Dog! · · Score: 1
      I find it shameful that people are willing to dismiss or hide their difference from those around them for fear of acceptance. What a boring place this would be if everyone felt that way!

      You'd be a perfect polyanna, except for that little appeal to shame and guilt. Lovely touch, really.

      If you ask me, anyone willing to give up uniqueness and individuality for comfort needs more help than nearly anyone I can think of.

      Perhaps you could start out asking why people would put the trade-off at a different place than you. Let me answer that for you in my case: I often wished to do that so that I could feel safe and not get physically harmed. The world actually isn't a lovely place where uniqueness and differences are celebrated; when you take one good look you will see that many differences, like skin color, sexual orientation, social misfit, lonerism actually will predispose a person to aggression and harm.

      It is perfectly allright for you to decide where your alignment between conformity and genius individuality lies, but your appeal to shame and dismissal as needing help of someone who makes their own choices basically come accross as an icky overlaying of your needs of creative expression of others over their own lives.

      How else could you expect to really know yourself? The struggle in adaptation can prove extremely enlightning. Do not presume to know the paths people other than you use to find themselves.

    10. Re:Good point but by arkanes · · Score: 1

      You think that rejecting your natural feelings and talents (because thats what we're talking about here) because you're afraid of getting beat up is better than a world where people celebrate differences? He's not saying "needs help" in a negative sense - he's saying that people who are forced to act as less than they are because they might be hurt need support, so that they CAN act as they are! If you felt safe and secure in expressing yourself, then you could do so, or not, without having to factor getting beat up into it.
      If you are actively trying to change yourself into something you aren't, then you aren't finding yourself.

    11. Re:Good point but by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Yet. You do not need help yet. You've got a long time to go before you get to say that you did not need help.

      And I'm not saying that you should be on drugs, either. Therapy is an excellent tool.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    12. Re:Good point but by Score+Whore · · Score: 1
      I would much rather be socially included in society, than be a genius outsider.


      Doesn't matter what you want. The parent poster wants you to be a genius for him. So too fucking bad if you are unhappy, isolated, etc. Just get to thinking and leave the breeding with supermodels to the rest of us.
  27. The MMR Vacine May Have Something to Do With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There has been a similar upsurge in cases of autism in the UK which has generated considerable publicity because the growth has been linked to the triple MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vacine.

    The theory is that in a small percentage of cases the vacine triggers some type of bowel disfunction which causes the children considerable pain and autism is a neurological feedback from this condition. Unfortunately, the condition seems permanent regardless.

    The doctor in the UK who was the first to suggest that there may be a link has just been forced from his position in a London Teaching Hospital even though he is a world-renowned expert in the field of bowel disfunction in children. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsi d_1687000/1687967.stm) It seems as though there are considerable vested interests on the side of those in support of the MMR vacine.

    Parents with young children should perhaps consider whether there is indeed a link between the two because autism seems a very high price pay when single vacine alternatives are available.

    1. Re:The MMR Vacine May Have Something to Do With It by meander · · Score: 2, Informative

      Doubt it. If the MMR vaccine had anything to do with it, then you would expect a sudden rise in the level of autistic cases reported, which then levels out as the vaccine saturates the whole child population. In fact, the number of autistic kids diagnosed was going up before MMR was introduced, and has kept rising slowly, with a definite slope rather than flattening out.

      The more likely cause was that folks actually started to look for autistic kids, and as they found them, money was poured (or trickled) in to extend their research, which kept the curve rising, as opposed to flattening off.

      This was written up earlier this year in the Brithish Medical Journal, with more accessible articles in New Scientist to follow. The consensus went for the latter explanation, which fits the data much better.

    2. Re:The MMR Vacine May Have Something to Do With It by claeswi · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is a very unfortunate and common misconception; the first signs and symptoms of autism-spectrum disorders often appear around the time when the child begins to speak, and this coincides with the time when the MMR vaccine is given. The epidemiological evidence is strong against there being a causal link.

      If you're seriously interested in reading about it rather than just deciding that the temporal correlation between the two is sufficient proof of causality, both BMJ and the Lancet have had a lot of original articles and correspondence on the topic in the past few years, for example the following study by Taylor et al.


      Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association


      Taylor et al.

      Summary

      Background We undertook an epidemiological study to investigate whether measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine may be causally associated with autism.

      Methods Children with autism born since 1979 were identified from special needs/disability registers and special schools in eight North Thames health districts, UK. Information from clinical records was linked to immunisation data held on the child health computing system. We looked for evidence of a change in trend in incidence or age at diagnosis associated with the introduction of MMR vaccination to the UK in 1988. Clustering of onsets within defined postvaccination periods was investigated by the case-series method.

      Findings We identified 498 cases of autism (261 of core autism, 166 of atypical autism, and 71 of Asperger's syndrome). In 293 cases the diagnosis could be confirmed by the criteria of the International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD10: 214 [82%] core autism, 52 [31%] atypical autism, 27 [38%] Asperger's syndrome). There was a steady increase in cases by year of birth with no sudden "step-up" or change in the trend line after the introduction of MMR vaccination. There was no difference in age at diagnosis between the cases vaccinated before or after 18 months of age and those never vaccinated. There was no temporal association between onset of autism within 1 or 2 years after vaccination with MMR (relative incidence compared with control period 094 [95% CI 060147] and 109 [079152]). Developmental regression was not clustered in the months after vaccination (relative incidence within 2 months and 4 months after MMR vaccination 092 [038221] and 100 [052195]). No significant temporal clustering for age at onset of parental concern was seen for cases of core autism or atypical autism with the exception of a single interval within 6 months of MMR vaccination. This appeared to be an artifact related to the difficulty of defining precisely the onset of symptoms in this disorder.

      Interpretation Our analyses do not support a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism. If such an association occurs, it is so rare that it could not be identified in this large regional sample.

      Lancet 1999; 353: 20262

      --
      I'd like to believe that when the right woman comes along I'll have the courage to say, "no thanks, I'm married."
    3. Re:The MMR Vacine May Have Something to Do With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      This is a little ignorant of the facts. While there are cases where vaccines (indeed, any injection) cause acute allergic reactions (which is immediate and generally treatable), there's nothing to suggest that they might be harmful in any other respect (and they are demonstrably very beneficial).

      The doctor in the UK you cite was strongly criticized for many omissions from his study. For example, while he correctly reported that since the introduction of the MMR vaccine, there have been more diagnoses of autism, he failed to report or explain that the same rise in autism rates was reported for children not receiving MMR vaccines. He also failed to report that many of the children he reported on exhibitied signs of autism prior to or at the time of initial innoculation.

      It's unfortunate that the general public is so willing to tacitly accept almost anything presented as "research" as gospel without looking into the matter.

    4. Re:The MMR Vacine May Have Something to Do With It by Kushana · · Score: 1

      It also completely ignores the genetic correlation. Is MMT administration gentetically determined?

      --

      Careers should combine three things: what you can do, what you want to do, and what you can get paid for.
    5. Re:The MMR Vacine May Have Something to Do With It by gidds · · Score: 1

      As others have said, the link between MMR and autism is dubious at best; even if it exists, the risk is far far smaller than the known risks of not immunising. I think it very sad that some parents are deciding not to immunise their children on the basis of this scare-mongering.

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    6. Re:The MMR Vacine May Have Something to Do With It by Non-Prophet · · Score: 1

      Here is testimony presented in house hearings this topic. Some of the testimony is rather interesting: like Dr. Wakefield's graphs that show the rise in autism in the UK delayed the US by 10 years, eventhough the same criteria is used in both countries.

    7. Re:The MMR Vacine May Have Something to Do With It by Herb+Ray · · Score: 1
      Vaccine research is fraught with conflicts of interest. The AMA and its JAMA, the Lancet -- these are not the Gospel. Follow the money: who funded the research?

      Dr. Andrew Wakefield is not some fool; rather, he is an eminently qualified research scientist who put his career on the line challenging the pharma/medical church because he found compelling evidence of a link between MMR and autism.

      unfortunate and common misconception
      Measles, mumps, and rubella are mild childhood diseases. It's conceiveable that the MMR-autism link will ultimately turn out to be false; however, until the richly funded, unbiased research shows unequivocally that this link doesn't exist, parents would be behaving reasonably if they chose to forgo vaccination against these mild diseases rather than putting their children in harm's way.

      Vaccination, like any other medical procedure, is a risk/benefit proposition. One recovers from mumps. One does not recover from autism

      There's a lot of stuff and nonsense all over the place in connection with vaccination, on both sides of the issue. For those who want to go to some fairly reasonable alternative sources:

      New Yorkers for Vaccination Information and Choice

      National Vaccine Information Center

      Be discerning! What are the ties between the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the pharmaceutical industry? These guys may be seriously conflicted. An AMA or CDC seal of approval doesn't mean jack. Remember the fifties and sixties when physicians routinely advised mothers NOT to breastfeed their infants? We can only wonder what ties this had to corporations like Nestlé.

  28. WIPO Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could WIPO Troll be a genius with Asperger's????

    1. Re:WIPO Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposedly he used to live on Windsor St. in Cambridge. I'm not fifteen minutes from there, but I never noticed anything out of the ordinary.

  29. A word to the wise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, here's a clue for the young geek troublemakers out there:

    It's very easy to pretend you are autistic. Thanks to Rain Man etc., everyone will immediately recognize your difficulty and take pity on you.

    So the next time you're caught hacking into the school mainframe, peering into the girls' locker room, or whatever, you know what to do!

  30. ho-hum by Marcus+Brody · · Score: 2

    They've known that Nick was an unusual child for a long time. He's infatuated with fantasy novels...

    [Asperger's patients are] children who lack basic social and motor skills, seem unable to decode body language and sense the feelings of others, avoid eye contact, and frequently launch into monologues about narrowly defined - and often highly technical - interests.


    OMFG this is revolutionary:
    There are Geeks in silicon valley!

    1. Re:ho-hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, judging on by that description, everyone who reads /. could consider themselves affected.

      The symptoms are much too unrelated and bare no apparent resemblance to another. Why should lack of motor skills cause a deficiency in social skills? (apart from the fact that people who lack motor skills are usually abused and isolated. Which is why I always hated everything to do with sport... despite not having any [diagnosed] neurological problems, I'm just not fit.)

      It seems more likely these symptoms frequently appear together but are otherwise unrelated.

  31. we already live a Autism favored culture... by Thaidog · · Score: 0

    Nobody knows everything and can do everything. If that were the case there would be no barber (wait bad example) or mechanic. People learn their job from their father (a japanese cultured idea) or at college. There is nothing holding these kids back from living a regular life by banking on their Autism.

    --

    ||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.

  32. Thats BS by HanzoSan · · Score: 2


    Autism has ALWAYS been here, its not a new thing, neither is ADHD or any of these other so called disorder.

    Hell even depression is a disorder, in the future when people evolved into emotionless beings, emotions will be a disorder, most likely starting with hate and moving up to love, why? Because just like Autism, emotion too can be a weakness.

    Face it, Autism is not something thats caused by the weather, to think that is like thinking your IQ is decided based on where you were born, i guess thats why kids born in these third world countries who dont even eat 3 meals a day have much higher IQs.

    Its not what you eat, its not the enviornment you live in, its your genes.
    Autism, ADHD etc, its a genetic feature, not a disorder. Sure it can be a problem or a disorder, but it also can be a feature, it depends on how you look at it. To a computer programmer, this is a very good thing because theres no way you can be a good programmer without going into that kinda anti social trace like state. I mean really, who writes programs while talking to their friends on the telephone, and drinking a beer?

    I suppose some might, but that would explain why code is so buggy these days.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Thats BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I mean really, who writes programs while talking to their friends on the telephone, and drinking a beer?
      I suppose some might, but that would explain why code is so buggy these days.

      I do and my code is better than most of the crap I've seen floating around out there.

    2. Re:Thats BS by linca · · Score: 1

      Yes, Yes, Sure. All your behaviors are genetics. All your thoughts come from your genes. You have been programmed. You will be assimilated.

      Now, please, have you ever heard about such thing as the ENVIRONMENT? You know, why kids are sent to school instead of to the fields, why they are left with their parents? Because the Envirenment matters. You won't get the same IQ if you never think between the ages of 6 and 14.

  33. this is evolution of mankind by Megahurts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Society is the abberation, not us. Society should conform to nature, not we to they. Yes, I am one like the article describes. And when it comes to academia, I simply perform. Learning takes about 1/10 the effort for me than it does for my neurotypical friends. In a world quickly changing to favor technology, it is people like me who will shape humanity within the next few centuries. We are a force against the consumeration and against the domestication of the human species. Perhaps this is even the beginning of a split somewhat like races in Welles' Time Machine.

    Don't fear the change. Embrace it.

    1. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Zero+Sum · · Score: 1
      In a world quickly changing to favor technology, it is people like me who will shape humanity within the next few centuries.

      No, it won't be people like us. It will be people like my daughter who has managed have the skills without the cost. And I, as must you, recognise that there is a cost.

      As in all things, balance is needed. The best (not me!) have both social and technical skills. Setephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein and many many more.

      --

      Zero Sum (don't amount to much). [root@localhost]

    2. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
      Hey, I have Asperger's too, but I'd like to point out- you can't breed from autistic people if feedback sets in, Sparky. Some master race! It's just as well.

      In my opinion if there's anything to be learned from all this, it's that self-acceptance and other-acceptance are equally important. I too suffered from attempts to conform me to society, but I am looking for a NICHE for myself in society, not to proclaim myself the new freaking ubermensch when I can't even drive a damn car without dropping into 'processing mode' and not being able to pay attention to the damn road.

      There is VALUE in all types of person and don't you forget it...

    3. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. Like Hawking is getting a BJ while his computerised voice is barking its approval.

    4. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Interesting
      • Society is the abberation, not us

      +1 harsh but true.

      Joe and Jane Normal are tedious herd beasts. Never mind dressing it up as "neurotypical", anyone with fewer than 2 SD's from 100 IQ (either way) is a dragging knuckle away from being a fully integrated member of the monkey tribe. Note the mindless chattering, the social grooming, the dominance displays and the obsession with screwing those monkey people who display the most normal traits. WWF and Survivor are made for Joe and Jane Normal. Jerry Springer features actual human beings, hooting and shrieking and flinging faeces. These are normal people being invited to display the extremes of their normal monkey behaviour for the amusement of the millions of other normal people watching them.

      An interesting part of this state of affairs is that Joe and Jane pursue happiness constantly, but (apart from brief moments of faeces flinging) they can never achieve it. Their busy monkey minds can focus only on how they can aquire what they believe that they need to be happier later. Never any pause to contemplate how happy they are now. I (and probably you, dear reader) revel in the buzz from untangling a glottic knot of code, or catching a split infinitive, or even just from staring at a corner of the ceiling and considering the angles. Joe and Jane can't understand how anyone could get pleasure from doing that - it's not something that a normal person would do. Normal people pursue happiness, they don't experience it. During lunch at work, I have to listen in an abstract way to Jane and Joe speculating on how much they must must own, and how many other monkeys they need to screw before the magical switch is flicked and they achieve the happiness that their aspirational books and TV promise them. Meanwhile, I stare at the corner of the ceiling with a beautific smile on my face, utterly content with what I have and who I am.

      The only thing that intrudes on my idyll is that I am aware that I am elitist, and that has negative connotations, especially if Asperger's is genetic. Like the parent poster, I do view myself as one of the master race, but I have no wish to be anybody's master. I already have everything that I want, so the monkey people are free to go back to their monkey antics and leave me alone to enjoy the thrill of creating software. I have no objection to Joe Facilities and Jane Manager sharing in the rewards from my work, nor does it bother me that Jane Manager considers her contribution more important, or that her financial rewards are higher (and yet still she must pursue happiness). Monkey dominance games are amusing and irritating in equal measure, but as it's clear that I won't play them, I'm not often bothered by them.

      And that's the world of Asperger's. When the monkey people leave you alone, it's a happy world. "Low functioning" Asperger's and autists are in an even more blissful place, farther removed from the monkey jabber and the last lingering urge to watch Oprah. I can't pretend that I don't envy them, just a little.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Society is the abberation, not us."

      Uh, right.

      Now go sit in the corner and play D&D, Mr. "Normal".

      Try not to hurt yourself.

    6. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa cowboy!

      You fall into the realm of normal and ordinary.

      That's a painfully true lesson for you, because most adolescents think they're something special inside.

      You are special, but not in an earthshaking way. When you grow up, you'll become a dad, raise kids, and contribute to society then way your mom and dad did, and theirs before them.

      That should be enough.

      Now remember that fire burns, don't tease your sister, and do your homework.

    7. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its never late to get a girlfriend.

    8. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Skirwan · · Score: 5, Funny
      Meanwhile, I stare at the corner of the ceiling with a beautific smile on my face, utterly content with what I have and who I am.
      Dude, I hate to break it to you, but you're not a geek, you're a Buddhist.

      Talk about misdiagnosis...
    9. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't even drive a damn car without dropping into 'processing mode' and not being able to pay attention to the damn road.

      Until now, I never realised that this was a common trait among all people with Asperger's. I too have the disorder, and have given up trying to learn to drive because I keep 'daydreaming' as others call it (I actually forget that I'm driving - quite dangerous). Unfortunately, I live in a semi-rural area of Australia, so driving is a necessity here - so my inability to drive is a real problem.

      (Posting AC because i have already moderated).
    10. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddhism is actually a philosophy that is well suited to geeks (especially Zen Buddhism with it's Taoist influences). It is also a very beneficial philosophy for sufferers of Asperger's (mild Autism) to follow, as it is very rational, and encourages one to detatch themselves from their own fellings of 'selfness', and focus on improving themselves. It is also attractive to many sufferers of Asperger's because of the way it eschews idle 'small-talk' - the thing us Asperger's sufferers hate most.

    11. Re:this is evolution of mankind by gargle · · Score: 2

      Monkey dominance games are amusing and irritating in equal measure, but as it's clear that I won't play them, I'm not often bothered by them.

      Then why are you crowing about your superiority and putting other people down here on slashdot? You clearly have the need to assert your dominance, but it's obvious that you have to do it here since you can't win in the real world.

      The simple fact of the matter is that there are people out there with high intelligence and good social skills. These are the people who make lots of money and become your bosses.

    12. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      erm, how is that asserting dominance? Posting anonymously to a forum? Who has the parent poster asserted dominance over?


      As you may have guessed, I agree wholeheartedly with parent poster, though I would never class myself as a geek or even highly intelligent, in fact I don't even work in the computing industry though I do program as a hobby. IMO the question here is: are their social skills good? How does continual competition with fellow members of society count as good social skills? Surely the point of a society is to function efficiently as a group? Not to compete persistently to garner more 'points' through the accumulation of nought at the end of ones bank balance, 'respect' for wearing the latest clothing and admiration for their ability to express domination over other people.


      There is more to life than these things, the people who spend their lives endlessly pursuing pointless goals, IMO, wasting them - they never stop to appreciate what they have, once they have attained their next pay rise, garment, house, car, whatever, they are looking at what they can get next.


      Who wants to win in the "real" world? Whos world is more real? I'm winning in my world, thank you very much, I am content. If others are happy in their world, so be it, just dont tell us we are not "winning" in their world, they can keep it.


      - D

    13. Re:this is evolution of mankind by mip · · Score: 1

      bah, i thought i had logged in...

    14. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Kupek · · Score: 2

      Has it ever occurred to you that the reason you don't have much social connections is that people don't want to hang around someone so full of themself?

    15. Re:this is evolution of mankind by cvd6262 · · Score: 1
      The downside to being better than everyone else is that they tend to assume you are pretentious.

      http://www.despair.com/pretension.html

      --

      I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

    16. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • it's obvious that you have to [assert your superiority] here since you can't win in the real world.

      What's the prize for winning? But if it bothers you, OK, you win. Does that make you happy? Are you typing with a smile on your face? I am.

      • The simple fact of the matter is that there are people out there with high intelligence and good social skills. These are the people who make lots of money and become your bosses

      Why do most of them seem so unsatisfied, I wonder? Always striving to position themselves as the person with the handle on the Big Picture, the vital cog in the corporate machine. And meanwhile, I concentrate on minutia, to my own personal satisfaction, and to the actual completion of software. Anyone who tells you that the Big Picture is more important than minutia isn't a software developer, they're monkeying around in marketing.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    17. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Insightful
      • Has it ever occurred to you that the reason you don't have much social connections is that people don't want to hang around someone so full of themself?

      What else would autism mean? However, I do have friends, just not many, carefully chosen, and carefully cultivated (Asperger's does mean you can indeed be a selfish fuck, if you aren't careful). What I was talking about was forced interaction, the repeated declining of invitations to social events, and trying to find a polite way to decline without just coming out and saying "We have nothing in common, and I have no interest in being your friend or spending any more time with you than I have to."

      In case you missed it though, I'll make my point clearer. Autism in its various forms is a blessing to those who have it. Severe Aspergers or full blown autism is a curse on the family and carers, but that's a different issue. Saying that you want to cure a child of autism is a selfish (but very understandable) act. Saying that you want to do it for their benefit is a cosy lie. I understand why monkey parents want to make their child behave normally, but some of my most traumatic childhood memories are of being forced to interact socially with the monkey tribe. I can forgive, but I can never forget, and my children will be enabled and perhaps encouraged but never, ever forced to join the herd.

      Mild autism is a wonderful state to be in. I can find words to describe what I imagine that you must be feeling when you type. Anger, resentment, an urge to dominate another individual. However, it doesn't affect me. I don't feel any urge to make a personal attack back, or to hurt you. In the nicest possible way, you're beneath my contempt. If you can't bother me (and you can't), I have no real interest in you, other than as a foil to help explain what mild Asperger's is like.

      My view is that the point of progress is to make people happier. Autism makes for happy people. The problem is resourcing and providing for that. Classic SF stories where humankind has reached the stage where planets are inhabited by a few individuals surrounded by silence and a plethora of technology - that's the autists dream. The alternative, where everyone is forcibly normalised and socialised, is a nightmare that doesn't bear thinking about.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    18. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
        • Meanwhile, I stare at the corner of the ceiling with a beautific smile on my face, utterly content with what I have and who I am.
        Dude, I hate to break it to you, but you're not a geek, you're a Buddhist.

      Funny and astute. Some important tenets of Buddhism are to avoid conflict, and to be content within oneself. I sometimes wonder if Buddhism is an attempt to replicate the state of autism that got muddled up along the way with a bunch of religious themes.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    19. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Kupek · · Score: 2

      Right. Have fun going around thinking you're better than everyone else, just like damn near everyone else does.

    20. Re:this is evolution of mankind by phague · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is so true, and I'm happy that there is someone else out there who realises this.

      I have aspergers, which is apparantly a mental disability. I consider this rather funny as most of the people telling me my mind doesnt work properly have 50 fewer IQ points than me (Im aware IQ isnt the be all and end all of intelligence, but I'm sure that I am smarter than these people in most testable ways).

      When I was young, I believed this lie however. I also believed the people who were telling me that I was stupid, socially inept, ugly etc. But as I grew up I realised that this was just the way Normal humans are - vindictively putting others down in a fruitless quest to make themselves feel better or look more desirable to the opposite sex.

      I tried for a long time to fit in with normal humans, but I never could. Then I realised that I shoulnd't try to copy the behaviour of these people. I am now a lot happier being myself, being different, and I no longer allow myself to be hurt by the daily attacks I receive from normals.

      However I cannot be as forgiving as you are towards them. Every time I meet new people I give them a chance, but every time they turn out to be carbon copies of all the mindless apes that I've met before. One of the reasons I do not have many friends is that most people I meet I consider disposable. Why bother making an effort with someone when you can walk into a pub and meet someone exactly the same as them and start afresh?

      To be blunt, normal people are vindictive, intollerant of even the slightest deviation from the norm, stupid and unimaginative. I refuse to accept that the better aspecets of modern society were created by these short-sighted, selfish individuals. Instead I suspect that civilisation has been guided by people like us, who spent their lives desperatley trying to drag the sluggish minds of the general populace to a higher level. And now it seems society has been shaped such that aspergers syndrome is more common. Normal people consider this a bad thing of course, but then again most animals flee from what they dont understand.

    21. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also have aspergers, but I'm getting over it. I'm happy that I'm getting over it. The asperger is blind. Blissful, perhaps, but blissful because he is blind to annoying sights. Deaf to distracting sounds. His tongue in numb to ugly tastes, all tastes for that matter, and he scoffs at those stupid monkeys who eat their "pizza" and "icecream". "Any fool knows that all a man needs is his daily food pellet and an occasional multivitamin." Don't get me wrong: Focus is bliss. It's the core power of the universe. I've dug it deeply. Halleluliagh, I rever it! But it's the bliss of the blind contemplating their favorite little dwarf gem, oblivious to all else. That "all else" is the WORLD and it contains ecstacies far and beyond anything ever dreamed of in the asperger's 2-inch reality. Love is REAL! Beauty is REAL! It isn't just poetic fancy. People can be SOFT WONDERFUL LIVING THINGS. You MIGHT BE COVEED IN ICE RIGHT NOW! Ever read any Norse mythology? Who do you think the dwarves were? Consider Dexter of "Dexter's Lab" I reccomend ZAZEN, or some similar "formless meditative practice". It'll shed light in dark places. Or maybe take some shrooms in a nice forest (NOT in the city) with some friends. How do you know what you're blind to if your blind to it?

    22. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone is pretentious. That's why kids with intellectual gifts have it so hard in school. People hate people who can do something better than they can.

    23. Re:this is evolution of mankind by kubalaa · · Score: 1
      I disagree with you in one important respect: "normals" are capable of transcending the limitations you have ascribed to them. To label them as a group "stupid" and "unimaginative" is making the same mistake as labeling autistics "retarded" and "socially inept." Some are even more interesting because of their fight against the "normal" tendencies which you are free of.

      Everyone feels that their viewpoint is somehow superior to everyone else's -- this cannot be helped, it is the nature of being conscious. The trick is to seperate the feeling of rightness from the intellectual certainty thereof.

      --

      "If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show

    24. Re:this is evolution of mankind by arkanes · · Score: 1

      You know, it's funny how poorly people react to people who are secure in themselves. I'm not autistic, but I am secure in the fact that my opinion is more important than anyone elses(It's a nice reinforcing loop - my opinion is important to me, and my opinion is all that matters) - But someone people get all pissed off an defensive whenever I say that. Why SHOULDN'T I feel superior to everyone else? For that matter, why shouldn't you feel superior to me? I don't care about your opinions, so why do you care about mine?

    25. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      Well, you're lucky. A lot of aspergers and autistics have no advantage whatsoever over "neurotypicals."

      There is good evidence that the *reason* primates evolved larger brains and prefrontal cortex was to improve social interaction. I guarantee you, if neurotypicals were gone, we'd have a hell of a time getting along with *anyone*. Social interaction is absolutely a more essential skill than any technical field. If you hand no ability to interact socially (Some autistics can barely speak) it wouldn't matter how you perform in academia.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    26. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Kupek · · Score: 2

      Oh, I'm not pissed off. (Guess you're not that good at reading emotions, eh?) Why shouldn't you feel superior to everyone else? Probably because you're not. I'm going to guess that the only reason you do is that you think you are. And most people think this, it's hardly a unique trait. And in my experience, the more sure someone is of their superiority, the more false a claim it is.

      And even if it is true... it's just plain obnoxious.

      Oh, and one can easily be secure and not be a snob.

      Obviously, on some level, you do care about my opinions, even if it is for amusement, since you are bothering to respond. Don't fool yourself.

    27. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      It's because there's two kinds of secure people. The stupid fucks who are just secure in themselves regardless of their actual capabilities, and those who are very capable and thus are secure in themselves. The first kind annoys people, the second kind are respected, admired and emulated. You might be the first kind.

    28. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Megahurts · · Score: 1

      When they tested castle bravo, they were expecting a 2-3 megaton yield. When they actually detonated it, they got a 10-12 megaton blast. Sometimes when developing under unknown circumstances, the goal can be overshot. Those who are unable to exist in society are selected out. We who are left, are left because we are flexible enough to blend in. to see me on the street, you wouldn't know I'm different at all.

    29. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Versa · · Score: 1

      For someone not pissed off you certainly write in a tone that would tend to suggest you are highly agitated. Ad hominom attacks instead of attacking the focus of his comment would tend to tell me that you are very angry at his idea and instead of finding things wrong with the idea you simply attack the creator of the idea, almost like a monkey throwing feces at a rival monkey. hmm, food for thought.

      I for one found the comment by rogerborg very insightful and seemed to put into words better then I; what I feel like sometimes. You say what he said was snobbish? I think it was simply being a realist.

    30. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      Right. And that's a good indication that you're not that autistic. You might be intelligent, but the two aren't necesarily linked.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    31. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Kupek · · Score: 2

      You're free to percieve what I said as an attack, but that's not how I viewed it. I was asking a serious question.

      I fully understand feeling different than most people (notice "feel," there's a difference between actually being different than most people and feeling different), but what I see his post as is a defensive mechanism. "I don't fit in with them, so they must be below me." If you'd actually engage all those people you deem below you in meaningful conversation, you'd find that everyone has depth. Not everyone outwardly shows it, but social outcasts aren't the only ones who are capable of intellectual thought.

    32. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sagan (one of those rare scientists with the gift of communicating to "normal" people effectively), maybe, but Einstein wasn't reknowned for his social skills, although his particular type of eccentricity was amiable.

    33. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, whatever man. We'll fight you and win. You just keep smiling at your ceiling. And don't move. We'll come to you.

    34. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's truly appalling how naive you are for all your aplomb. I hope you get hit by a bus and get reborn as a cockroach. Seriously. All the best,

    35. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Zero+Sum · · Score: 1

      Isn't amiability a social skill ? (One that I lack).

      --

      Zero Sum (don't amount to much). [root@localhost]

    36. Re:this is evolution of mankind by sansoo · · Score: 1

      If you think everyone has depth; either: you have low standards, or you haven't talked to many people. I get along fine with my co-workers, but I find interacting with them exhausting. And they all bore me. And no, not everyone bores me. Just erveryone at the mill where I work. I am excruciatingly polite (I think). But they bore me. Not my in-laws (engineers), not my fellow former students.

      --
      We are the first generation of Morlocks. Eat the rich!
    37. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • Right. Have fun going around thinking you're better than everyone else, just like damn near everyone else does

      Thanks! I will!

      Oh, wait... this is that monkey prank called "sarcasm", isn't it? Did you have a point, or were you just flinging some faeces to let off steam?

      My point was that the original article (remember that?) painted Aspergers and autism in a negative light, that it is something that we should "cure". There's a contrary view to that, and to express it necessitates a value judgement. I think that I am better off with Aspergers than I would be without it, and that means (like it or not) that I tend to think that I'm better off than most people without it.

      Being better than them is another matter. How do we want to measure value? Productivity? I win. Personal development? I lose. Achievement of contentment? I win. Pick your own criteria, if it makes you happier.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    38. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Kupek · · Score: 2
      If you think you're better off, fine, in fact, I applaud you; you're comfortable with who you are, and you like who you are. That's a good thing to feel. It is possible, however, to be secure like that in your own person and not act quite as elitist as you have. Don't excuse one with the other.

      There was a point behind my sarcasm (there usually is). Just about everyone - including "normals" - think that they are better than everyone else. If you're going to take this attitude, than ironicaly, you're acting just like the people you're assuming to be better than. (And given your attitude, I feel you are acting like that.)

      Oh, one more thing:

      Oh, wait... this is that monkey prank called "sarcasm", isn't it? Did you have a point, or were you just flinging some faeces to let off steam?
      Yeah, it was sarcasm, a tool which I use. Now, what do you suppose the faeces flinging comment was? More sarcasm, perhaps? So you're calling it a "monkey prank," but using it yourself. Interesting...
    39. Re:this is evolution of mankind by Kupek · · Score: 2

      Yes, everyone has depth. Don't confuse a difference in interests and what one considers important in life as a lack of depth.

      Those people that bore you have depth, you just haven't bothered to find it. (They still, however, may bore you, and that's fine; no one said we had to like everyone.)

  34. I've always suspected it... by erroneus · · Score: 2

    ...to be a really good geek, you have to be just a little bit autistic.

    It would explain a lot about what seemed to be missing from my life at the earliest of ages. But rather than to say that much of society's rules and heirarchies are invisible, I would say they were perplexing at times as really stupid people often rule over really smart people. Worse, women ... well, okay, if I go into that, then that makes all men autistic...can't do that now can we?

    But I'll tell ya this much -- Life and society still doesn't make much sense. Is it just me being overly analytical and unable to accept things as they are or is it the mildest form of autism? Surely I'm not the only geek on the planet that sees things in this way... hello?

    1. Re:I've always suspected it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are just an insecure git going through the throes of puberty (extended puberty, probably), feeling damned sorry for himselves. Get over it already. Shit people, this is not fucking rocket science.

  35. Re:Pure bunkus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    umm it genetic twins share it 9 out of 10 times thats not just chance

  36. we need cats by DZign · · Score: 5, Interesting

    it's also been proven that kids who have small pets (cats, dogs, ..) are better to notify body language and emotions and so.. so all geeks in silicon valley should adopt a cat for their children..

    1. Re:we need cats by Kieckerjan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Ah well, but some people argue that cats cause schizophrenia:

      http://www.linguafranca.com/print/0012/cover_pet.h tml

      Take your pick...

      --
      Being well balanced is overrated. -- John Carmack
    2. Re:we need cats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps that's so, but you must admit that cats have the hacker nature.

    3. Re:we need cats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the problem has to do with social interaction? That being said, how would having a cat improve people with autism's social skills - The only thing I get from my mom's cat is "Get up and feed me," or "Now that you've fed me, get out of my house."

      If they need social interaction, they need a DOG!

    4. Re:we need cats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      but you must admit that cats have the hacker nature.

      mu

    5. Re:we need cats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always knew my cats were driving me frickin nuts...

    6. Re:we need cats by _outcat_ · · Score: 2

      lol! while I see the tongue-in-cheek nature of this comment I can see how the parallel can be drawn. When I was a little kid, I would watch my big maine coon cat, Spatter, for any clues as to his "language" (he was a big, smart cat and we were inseparable). It fascinated me that there was a whole different order of communication to be explored. (When I was about four I remember sitting him down amid paper and crayons and trying to show him the alphabet. All he did was lie down on the paper and go to sleep. I miss that cat...)

      I'm now a communication major, and have always been fascinated with language and reading minute social clues. In fact I'm working on learning a few other languages, mostly to satisfy my curiosity as to what it would be like to be fluent in other languages and cultures. I also consider myself a geek and can be extremely technically-minded.

      So maybe I can make the point here that might bear repeating. Just like being a geek and having autism (or asparger's or dyslexia) do not necessarily go hand in hand (this is PATENTLY obvious, as there are many, many geeks that do not have such conditions) there are also geeks who have very strong, advanced social/linguistic/communication skills.

      --
      Angry IT woman in big clompy boots. And talking lint!.
    7. Re:we need cats by Angry+Toad · · Score: 1

      True, but there's a reason you're using the word "geek". The meaning has changed a *lot* over the past 20 years, but there is a reason why that word was originally applied... it wasn't appropriate to everyone, sure, but to enough, to enough...

  37. The Next Chic Disorder by sheriff_p · · Score: 1

    What saddens me is the fear that Aspeger's is going to become a scape-goat disease... "I don't have any friends ... I like to write shitty little VB programs ... I MUST BE AUTISTIC!!?"

    I recognise that there are people with Aspeger's and other forms of Autism - in the States, afair from the article, there are 450,000. I bet there are hoards of socially-retarded geeks out there who use it as an excuse not to go make friends though.

    Sure, mod me down, show me how socially-retarded *you* can be.

    --
    Score:-1, Funny
    1. Re:The Next Chic Disorder by fatphil · · Score: 1

      "... I bet there are hoards of socially-retarded geeks out there who use it as an excuse not to go make friends though."

      Yes, and no.

      They don't need to use it as an /excuse/, unless some external entity (society, shrinks who want to publish papers) accuses them as if they are in the wrong.

      The geeks are developing their own social standards, which non-geeks think is, erm, geeky. However, the geeks, IMHO, should not feel the need to apologise, or excuse themselves, for this, as long as they accept and understand the consequences of their behaviour.

      Instances of situations like unwanted teen pregnancies or single parent families and acrimonious divorces, and withdrawal from mainstream society due to drug abuse amongst people I know are almost entirely in the geeks favour (having almost none of the above, unlike the non-geeks).

      So whose social standards are in question?

      FatPhil

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    2. Re:The Next Chic Disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if total social ineptitude was not enough of an excuse not to go out and make friends?

      We commonly assume that the problem with the 'loner geeks' is that they spent their high school years in front of their computers rather than developing social skills.

      This is probably true, but has anyone asked why they spend their youths that way in the first place?

      The article provides convincing evidence that geekhood could be caused by a genetic predisposition (in some cases, at least).

  38. Is it learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could Autism and Asperger's Syndrome be a learned behavior, or lack of a learned behavior? These types of parents are more likely to have been "loaners" and people who kept to themselves. Basically, they probably lacked at least some social skills. Place a Mother and Father with these social problems and they will un-consciously pass them down to their child. Say both of these parents work long hours and spend less time with their kid. Place their kid along with other kids in a daycare facility. These kids already have a social problem. Now you place them with other kids who have the same social problems. They never develop and are taught how to be social. Instead they retreat to their computers or what-not. Couldn't this be how something like this could happen?

    1. Re:Is it learned? by c=sixty4 · · Score: 1
      Could Autism and Asperger's Syndrome be a learned behavior, or lack of a learned behavior? These types of parents are more likely to have been "loaners" and people who kept to themselves.

      No. Autism and Asperper's Syndrome are caused by differences in the function of the brain. They are somatical, not psychological. This has been demonstrated several times with MRI pictures of autistic vs "normal" brains interpreting similar stimuli. It's most definitely genetic. Having bad parents will not give you autism any more than they will cause your eyes to change colour.
      --
      "The good die first." "Most of us are morally ambiguous, which explains our random dying patterns." --- MST3K
  39. Doctor: by mirwor · · Score: 0, Troll

    'Mrs. Smith, here are the results of your amnio. There's a 1 in 10
    chance that you'll have an autistic child, or the next Bill Gates. Would you
    like to have an abortion?'


    Now, that's an easy one...

  40. Autism or Aspergers? by Yaruar · · Score: 5, Informative

    One of the things I have been finding out a lot about recently is aspergers due to living with the daughter of an expert.

    We ahve been toying with ideas about links between people suffering from high functioning aspergers syndrome and people who work in professions such as IT, especially development. This is mainly because with aspergers the only major outward impairment of the individual is with social interraction and social awareness and this coupled with tendency to obsess over repetitive detail means that aspergers sufferers fit the mould of good programmers.

    I don't know enough about the syndrome to know if it is passed on through genes, but one could postulate if there is a group with a higher than average make up of the disease who are breeding amongst themselves it might possibly lead to a significent level of new cases compared to the national average.

    Even today a lot of aspergers cases are misdiagnosed as straight autism.

    Here for more information on aspergers and the differences between it and autism

    --
    Working for the (other) man
    1. Re:Autism or Aspergers? by fatphil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "I don't know enough about the syndrome to know if it is passed on through the genes, ..."

      A syndrome is a collection of traits.

      It's quite possibly for some to be genetic predispositions, and for others to be nothing but nurture. One ought to try to treat the ingredients of the syndrome as being independent. e.g. the intellectual traits ranging from below average to above average implies that one shouldn't try to correlate traits pertaining to attention span with those pertaining to test-answering intelligence.

      FatPhil

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    2. Re:Autism or Aspergers? by caudron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Autism is just an umbrella term to describe a certain somewhat similar collection of traits. Noone is /just/ autistic in that sense. One in usually diagnosed as a particular brand of autism. Aspergers is a form of autism with a specific set of traits. If a person with aspergers is diagnosed with autism, it isn't a misdiagnisis, it's the first stage to discovering what sort of autism.

      --
      -Tom
    3. Re:Autism or Aspergers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is mainly because with aspergers the only major outward impairment of the individual is with social interraction and social awareness and this coupled with tendency to obsess over repetitive detail means that aspergers sufferers fit the mould of good programmers.

      Hey that sounds like me. Except I call it being a shy perfectionist.

    4. Re:Autism or Aspergers? by iiii · · Score: 1
      I don't know enough about the syndrome to know if it is passed on through genes

      Umm, that's basically what the whole article was about.
      From the Article:

      "The one thing that almost all researchers in the field agree on is that genetic predisposition plays a crucial role in laying the neurological foundations of autism in most cases. Studies have shown that if one identical twin is autistic, there's a 90 percent chance that the other twin will also have the disorder. If parents have had one autistic child, the risk of their second child being autistic rises from 1 in 500 to 1 in 20. After two children with the disorder, the sobering odds are 1 in 3."

      --
      Light cup, beer drink, thin so chain, neck turtle fat, man I won't say it again
    5. Re:Autism or Aspergers? by sheldon · · Score: 2

      " links between people suffering from high functioning aspergers syndrome and people who work in professions such as IT"

      Good grief, like two years ago on slashdot there was an article from a professor which explained this link.

      Here it is:

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/09/13/1223 21 5&mode=thread

      and another one:
      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/09/27/1347 21 3&mode=thread

  41. I'm in that boat by scott1853 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I not in CA, I'm in NY, but a programmer all the same. Yes I've bought my 4 yo son every electronic toy in the store, and he's addicted to computers just like me.

    He had a problem with speech not too long ago. Nothing drastic, but he would tend to slur a couple words in the middle of long sentances. We had a speech therapist visit once a week for a couple months. She decided he must be autistic. She went on to explain that they (phsycologists) are finding that there are several levels of autism. I asked to see the criteria for determining autism. I was expecting to find some scientific process for testing. What she handed me was a booklet similar to this, with all the criteria used to judge a child.

    For those of you that follow the link, you can see how subjective and innacurate the evaluation is. Basically, if you are not considered "Perfect" based on some arbitrary set of standards, then you must be autistic. Based on that test, probably 80% of the /. population could be considered autistic.

    I truly doubt there is an increase in autism, just an increase in the number of children they are diagnosing as autistic. I never believed or trusted in psychologist in the first place. This just reassures me that they are as bad as lawyers, only caring about getting more clients and more money than actually helping anyone with real problems.

    1. Re:I'm in that boat by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Nothing drastic, but he would tend to slur a couple words in the middle of long sentances"

      Sounds like a quantisation error. You might want to think about upping the sample rate.

    2. Re:I'm in that boat by grazzy · · Score: 1

      In Sweden we even got a word for describing these kind of childen 'letterchildren', since the diffrent sicknesses can be abbrivated to a letter which you can add and subtract to a whole chain of letter.

      This is not only for authistic children ofcourse, but for all children with social and concentratings-problems.

      Whats intresting is that during the 90s these soo-called letterchildren has skyrocketed much like Silicon valley is said to be doing now, since there isnt any real scientific explanation to why this is happening most psychologists blame cutdowns in school and social welfare. Which is problem a pretty big part of the problem. I personally does not belive that the actual number of 'diseased' children have gone up, I rather belive that decreased care and fundings have made this problem more visual. Earlier a child with this kind of disorder would just have been declared 'dumb' and put away in some specialschool/class.

      Regarding your problem, if im not mistaken its pretty usual that children that age 'slur' on long sentences since they are to eager to speak.. almost more of a common practice than not..

    3. Re:I'm in that boat by sydneyfong · · Score: 2, Funny

      From the article: "I think all tech people are slightly autistic"

      Based on that test, probably 80% of the /. population could be considered autistic.

      Yes, I'd say the test is quite accurate ;-)

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    4. Re:I'm in that boat by Bongo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I truly doubt there is an increase in autism, just an increase in the number of children they are diagnosing as autistic. I never believed or trusted in psychologist in the first place.

      Well, when we study people, as Psychology does, we get into very tricky territory.

      Basically there's this desire to be scientific. We know that science works because we put a man on the moon. So we want everything to be scientific. Like, if it science, then it's true.

      But science can only answer certain questions. What is it's mass? Where is the brain activity? But then there's this whole other half of knowing, which is about meaning and context and interpretation. And this stuff cannot be known objectively. It can only be interpreted, and the trick is to find the best interpretation.

      For example, you can objectively measure heart rate. But what is the meaning of the heart rate? Is it because the patient is angry? or excited? or aroused? Which word would the patient use to best describe what they are feeling? Or would you rather just look at their face, to see if they are angry? But now you're still having to interpret. Are they angry? Do they have bad indigestion?

      Meaning exists in the mind, and not in the physical brain mass. You can measure chemicals in the brain, but if you want to know what the patient is experiencing, then you have to ask them. And their answer will have to be interpreted. (Well, he says he feels fine, but he didn't sound too sure)

      So meethinks that here we have a thing called autism that can't be measured by a machine (unless they find a specific brain region that can be tied to it). And it affects how people interact socially. Now I challenge you to find an objective, performed automatically by machine, test that can measure social inteaction.

      No way. The machine would have to not only register language, body posture, etc. but would have to know the meaning of all those things. It would have to practically be sentient, so that it could interpret what it's seeing. At which point it becomes just as subjective as anybody else.

      Now until they find a way to measure the brain that is directly tied to autism... we have to interpret what the person is doing (is he just tired or is he antisocial?) which is frought with difficulty... but that doesn't mean that autism "doesn't exist".

      So I think the trouble with that test, on the site which you linked, is that it tries to turn a subjective, interpretationally based test, into something which gives you a number for an answer.

      Nope. Sorry. No numbers allowed. This is an interpretation, (and possibly a good one, depending on who's performing the evaluation). So the best that the test can be said to "result" in is a, "probably yes", "probably no", or "let's keep an eye on this".

      So what we're doing is distinguishing between Objective Truth that can be measured, and Subjective Authenticity which must be interpreted. This is a distinction made by Ken Wilber, when he looked at many fields of human knowledge and asked himself how it could all possibly fit together. And he noticed that not only were there these two categories, but that our scientifically driven modern world thinks that science is the only kind of truth. Which is half right. The Objective can be studied scientifically. Man walked on the moon! But the subjective aspects, like what's really going on inside a person's experience, THAT can only be found out by talking to the person, interacting with them, interpreting their inner world.

      Science won't reveal meaning. "Honey, I love you", "Don't be silly dear. There's no such thing as love in reality. Your brain is merely swishing around some chemicals. When you give me a present I know it's just your brain chemistry acting up. Oh, you want to have sex? But that's just your testosterone. Here's some pills I got from the doctor. The'll re-adjust your chemistry balance."

      So we have to see that in addition to the noble truths of science, there's also the noble authenticity of interpretation.

      Don't say, "It's not scientific! So it's a pile of crap!" But also, (and this maybe applies to those psychologists), don't pretend that something youve discovered via interpretation is actually something objective and scientific. Just be sure that your interpretation is a good one, and that you check it with other, suitably prepared people who also agree the same meaning. Just like English speakers can interpret English, and be fairly close in their meaning of the words.

      Rather, given this phenomenon, "autism", can we study it objectively? Can we study it subjectively? Can we use both what the equiment tells us and what our interpretations tell us? What can we find out about autism, through studying it via both channels?

    5. Re:I'm in that boat by pubjames · · Score: 2


      I suggest that before you bother reading this long post you take a look at the web site the poster recommends and about "Ken Wilber". Read his very interesting article "On the Nature of a Post-Metaphysical Spirituality". In England we call this type of stuff "bollocks".

    6. Re:I'm in that boat by Bongo · · Score: 1

      I suggest that before you bother reading this long post you take a look at the web site the poster recommends and about "Ken Wilber". Read his very interesting article "On the Nature of a Post-Metaphysical Spirituality". In England we call this type of stuff "bollocks".

      LOL! Need I tell you what we call people like you in England?

      Wilber is a philosopher and so has to deal with academic language. That particular article was written in response to another academic. But if you read his books, you'll find that he can take some very muddy stuff look very clear.

      So before anyone takes your advice, I suggest they remember that you don't know what you're talking about.

      Cheers matey!

    7. Re:I'm in that boat by Webmonger · · Score: 2

      There isn't a "mark all fair" button because in metamod it's better to get "no data" than an accidental "fair".

    8. Re:I'm in that boat by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      But if you read his books, you'll find that he can take some very muddy stuff look very clear.

      Christians babble this same nonsense about their favorite imaginary friend.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    9. Re:I'm in that boat by pubjames · · Score: 4, Funny

      LOL! Need I tell you what we call people like you in England?

      Wilber is a philosopher and so has to deal with academic language.


      I think you didn't understand my criticism of your post.

      The mapping of your concept space onto mine pre-supposes my own post-contextual usage. In a very pre-evolutionary way, the multi-dimensional concept space in which our ideas move (what Glieber and Friesch define as the "Geshaltmorph") is defined by our own context, therefore your criticism of my post is invalid. Wiber's writing are, indeed, within the limitations of our own understanding of post-Gesthaltmorph contextualizations , "bollocks".

    10. Re:I'm in that boat by Bongo · · Score: 1

      Christians babble this same nonsense about their favorite imaginary friend.

      Don't label me a religious nut.

      Sheeesh. I wasn't talking about "spirituality". But as you've brought it up, go study Zen for 20 years and then come back and tell us that there's no such thing as "spirituality".

      Now go troll somewhere else.

    11. Re:I'm in that boat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zen unlocks the power of the human mind. So, if by spirituality you mean 'the human mind', then sure, there is such a thing as spirituality.

    12. Re:I'm in that boat by Bongo · · Score: 1

      The mapping of your concept space onto mine pre-supposes my own post-contextual usage. In a very pre-evolutionary way, the multi-dimensional concept space in which our ideas move (what Glieber and Friesch define as the "Geshaltmorph") is defined by our own context, therefore your criticism of my post is invalid. Wiber's writing are, indeed, within the limitations of our own understanding of post-Gesthaltmorph contextualizations , "bollocks".

      Bye bye now, my bored friend.

    13. Re:I'm in that boat by rjs0977 · · Score: 1

      I had sort of this same problem in the early 80s (age 4-6).

      I was having trouble pronouncing certain words with the letter 's' in them (superman, speed, scott, etc). Turns out I had excess fluid in my ears that was keeping that specific sound from reaching my brain, or so the speech therapist said. Drained the fluid, went to speech therapy for a bit, and returned to 'normal' fairly fast.

      I shudder to think what I would have been diagnosed with these days.

    14. Re:I'm in that boat by hoggoth · · Score: 1
      Sounds like a typically autistic statement. Care to describe a painting for us?

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    15. Re:I'm in that boat by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > The mapping of your concept space onto mine pre-supposes my own post-contextual usage.

      Nobody move! He's got a Chomskybot and he's not afraid to use it!

    16. Re:I'm in that boat by vinnythenose · · Score: 1

      I tended to just not use letters or sounds in words. Turned out I was just a lazy speaker :)

      --
      --- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
    17. Re:I'm in that boat by Xoro · · Score: 1

      But as you've brought it up, go study Zen for 20 years and then come back and tell us that there's no such thing as "spirituality".

      You can't learn anything by studying Zen for 20 years. Just ask a Zen master.

      --
      Kill, Tux, kill!
    18. Re:I'm in that boat by greenrd · · Score: 1
      if im not mistaken its pretty usual that children that age 'slur' on long sentences since they are to eager to speak

      Hell, I do that and I'm 22! One of my professors is even worse - slurs words together regularly.

    19. Re:I'm in that boat by digaman · · Score: 1

      > From the article: "I think all tech people are slightly autistic"

      To be clear, I was quoting Douglas Coupland is his novel Microserfs there -- just in case anyone's reading only the comments here and not the article itself (grin).

    20. Re:I'm in that boat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Based on that test, probably 80% of the /. population could be considered autistic.

      And I'm a mild case of Asperger's syndrome.

    21. Re:I'm in that boat by markmoss · · Score: 2

      That pamphlet is indeed pretty subjective, with no definition of what the normal range of behavior is. Training of the evaluators could reduce the variation between different ones... But there is an OBJECTIVE test for autism (at least for the severe full-blown variety). I can't find it on-line right now, but I saw it last year. IIRC, it uses several lights that can be blinked. Blink one, everyone looks at it. Leave it blinking and start another one blinking, NT's will look at the new one. An autistic will keep on looking at the first one to blink. I don't know how Asperger syndrome and other autism-related disorders do.

      I wouldn't worry too much about "if your are not considered 'perfect' based on some arbitrary set of standards, then you must be autistic." Considering the sensitivity and awareness often demonstrated by psychologists on the public payroll, "fails to respond" may mean he wouldn't notice firecrackers going off under his chair. You might be lucky to get a speech therapist that hasn't been trained to the point of numbness -- just get her to slow down bit on guessing about stuff out of her specialty...

    22. Re:I'm in that boat by orangecat · · Score: 1
      Basically, if you are not considered "Perfect" based on some arbitrary set of standards, then you must be autistic.

      No, that's not the how the test you linked works (I can't say anything about the pamphlet you were given, of course).

      In the linked test, you are rated on a scale of 1-4 in 15 different areas. A score of 30+ indicates a mild to moderate degree of autistic behaviour.

      You are not going to get a score of 30 by having mild symptoms in 1 or 2 (or even 10) areas. You'd need either mild symptoms over a broad range of developmental areas, or a smaller number of more severe symptoms.

      Is the test perfect? No. It relies on the judgement of the person doing the evaluation, which can be effected by any number of factors. If you don't feel it's right, get a second opinion. Your local school district (since you're in the US) is required to provide testing.

      One thing to consider - regardless of whether or not your son is autistic, it probably indicates that the public school system will not be a good place for him. Of course, this could be said for the vast majority of the population, but is likely to be especially true for those who are labeled because they are not average and the school district does not know any better way to deal with them. This is not a negative reflection on your son, but on the school system.

    23. Re:I'm in that boat by cheese_wallet · · Score: 1

      I always thought that 80% of the population was just plain stupid. But now I realize they are actually autistic.

    24. Re:I'm in that boat by other_things_to_do · · Score: 1

      Now that one floored me!

      Beautiful.

    25. Re:I'm in that boat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      27,615

    26. Re:I'm in that boat by Bongo · · Score: 1

      You can't learn anything by studying Zen for 20 years. Just ask a Zen master.

      Obviously. I've read enough books on Zen that start with "you won't learn anything reading this book" to know that. As has anyone who's picked up a book on Zen.

      I didn't say "learning". You added that. So I used the word "study". Guess I should have used "practice". What I meant was, "do it to find out". Study in the sense of finding out.

      You could have guessed from the context that I meant study/practice. I meant study in the sense of deepening understanding. Which comes about through the practice of the various Zen ways, meditation, koans, discipline, "Who am I?", etc. And you already know that.

      So sure, but just because satori is undescribable, "He who speaks does not know", it doesn't mean that Zen masters always stay silent. They write! They give lectures! D.T. Suzuki was considered the greatest living Zen scholar. He had his satori. He wrote books. Ken Wilber had his satori. He continues to write books.

      As one irritated Buddhist asked Ken in an interview, "So what do you know that the Buddha doesn't??", KW: "How to drive a jeep."

  42. Evolution by zmooc · · Score: 1

    I don't think it would be to far off to consider this the logical evolutionairy step of the technological era; a lot of disabled people appear but among them there also are some extraordinarily bright people which have an even larger chance of surviving and reproducing.

    --
    0x or or snor perron?!
    1. Re:Evolution by Lozzer · · Score: 2

      I think you are miles off (and getting dangerously Lamarkian). Why would bright but "socially retarted" (please supply a better term) people have a better chance of reproducing than you average Joe Sixpack (whoever he may be)?

      From the article you could say that people with Asperger's/Autism may have a better chance of reproducing that they used to, because of the polarization of places like Silicon Valley, but I still reckon Mr Sixpack and his friends are doing OK in the reproductive stakes (and better than Mr Geek).

      On a different note why am I not surprised that I have all the symptoms of Asperger's.

      --
      Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
    2. Re:Evolution by zmooc · · Score: 2
      I didn't say that socially disabled (better term?:)) have a better chance of reproducing themselves. At least that's not what I meant to say:) What I meant to say is that apart from autistic children, there also happen to appear a lot of really bright non-autistic (or at least socially capable) children from parents that have a larger chance of having autistic kids. And that those really bright ones have a larger chance of reproducing themselves than the autistic ones.

      And on the same different note: I also have most of the symptons and so does more than 50% of those that study Computer Science at my university. And most of the diagnosed autists I know have at least 1 geeky parent. So I was not surprised at all. I even think this article was a few years late:)

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    3. Re:Evolution by Lozzer · · Score: 2

      I guess I was taking the phrase "logical evolutionairy step" too literally (which is itself symptomatic of Asperger's). I think the environment of the western world will allow more diversity in the future, and among that diversity will be people from the whole range of Autism. I think this is similar to what you are saying. I previously thought you were implying that people toward the "normal" end of Asperger's would become dominant through the evolutionary process.

      --
      Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
    4. Re:Evolution by zmooc · · Score: 1
      I guess I was taking the phrase "logical evolutionairy step" too literally (which is itself symptomatic of Asperger's)

      Trying to blame `mistakes' (I don't think it was one) on syndromes which you have decided you happen to have is a bit silly:)

      Anyway: that's what I meant. Now that we've finally reached common understanding, maybe we should mate in order to push Evolution in the right direction:P

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
  43. geeks & freaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most geeks are introverted.

    geeks seek out kindred spirits, so it's fairly easy to assume that geeks would marry geeks.

    what do you get when you cross an introverted geek with an introverted geek?

    blam bang, superbly introverted children or, as the current politically correct view has it, autistic children.

    so using genetics here,

    geek + geek = freak

    go figure

    maybe they should make a G designation for chromosomes to help couples determine if they're going to have an introverted loser who will soon be the subject of many jon katz stories from the hellmouth.

    X, Y and G.

    makes perfect sense to me.

  44. evolution of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that's good.
    We are going to replace football-watching mindless humans with high-IQs science-minded ones.
    There isn't any problem.

    1. Re:evolution of mankind by Thaidog · · Score: 0

      What we need to do is replace football watching mindless humans with ones that play instead of watch. After that, there will be alot less of both.

      --

      ||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.

  45. Well by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Yes they do need individual attention, or they need to learn perhaps using computers and technology instead of books and chalkboards.

    I think people who are autistic could learn better teaching themselves than sitting in a classroom being forced to read outloud and obeying orders from a teacher. Now theres options such as homeschooling and tutors, or they can go through school the normal way and be labeled autistic.

    Really, to me its all just another way to label a person, like geek, nerd, etc to seperate them from the pack. If they need individual attention, give it to them, how? Create some education software for autistic children, instead of having these kids sit with the group, put them in front of the computer and let them use the software to learn, let them browse the internet, let them learn from within their own world instead of forcing everyone to learn the exact same way.

    Why not? We have the technology to do it, we just need the money, the software, and instead of wasting all this money on stupid drugs like ritalin and whatever, spend it on tutors and extra computers.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Well by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 1

      >Yes they do need individual attention, or they need to learn perhaps using computers and technology instead of books and chalkboards

      You mean ...technology AND books and chalkboards.

      Trust me, a kid like those described in the article needs books, perhaps even more so than computers. A good story is a safe, quiet place, and allows the mind to roam.

    2. Re:Well by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      You really just aren't very smart, are you? I've been reading this thread and I keep seeing you say "Autism is just a way of being different." Have you actually met an autistic child? They aren't just different. You can't just give them their rein and they'll go out and develop into an adult. Most autistic children would die if they were left to themselves. They won't wander over to the fridge if they get hungry. There aren't many behavioral drugs that will do anything for an autistic child. Pull your head out of your ass and look at what the people who have autistic family members are relating here. Go do some reading. Find out what it means for a person to be autistic. Then come back and post.

  46. a plague? by Alpha+State · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "bringing a plague down on the best minds of the next generation"

    I have some symptoms of autism (I'm sure I'm not alone), and have done a fair bit of reading on it. It seems very common that with autisms come some very great intellectual gifts - eg. Rainman. Some these kids need a lot of help, but I have to question whether autism is really a curse.

    I'm no expert, but it seems to me that mildly autistic people often get better themselves (usually after puberty), and still retain their mental gifts. IMHO we should be trying to develop and harness the abilities of these kids rather than trying to make them normal.

    Finally some (non-expert) advice. This is just stuff that would have helped me when I was younger. If your kid is really autistic, you need professional help:

    Let them do their own thing. Many things which are normal for most people are very stressful for autistic people, they need their own routine / fantasy world / etc. to relax and get them selves together. I would suggest managing a team of specialists for your kid 80 hours a week is not the best approach. At the same time, it's important not to let them obsess for hours on end. Find something they like to break the routine occaisionally.

    Find some physical excercise they enjoy. In school predominantly team sports are played, autistics typically don't like these. Try individual or one-on-one sports. Excercise I got into (in spite of being very non-physical) included swimming, running, tennis and martial arts. Creative pursuits are also good - particularly visual arts and music.

    Above all, remember that your kid does not have to be normal - no-one is. For every time you lament their lack of friends or weird behaviour there will be a time you are amazed at their accomplishments.

    1. Re:a plague? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, too, have some symptoms of autism. I find it hard to pick up on how other people feel about me. I don't have a strong motivation to make friends, but I do have a small group of long-time friends whose company I value quite strongly.

      Oddly, they're mostly obsessives. One woman is an Oxford PhD Maths type, with an obsessive need to count things. We often have large amounts of small change lying around, and when she visits, she counts all of it and leaves it in little tidy piles. :-)

      When I met my current partner, who I've been with for nearly ten years, the things I noticed about her were...

      She had a spectacularly good sound system :)
      On further investigation I found that she'd chosen the amplifier on the basis that it had excellent phase response (for that crystal clarity and perfect stereo imaging), and a really high slew rate supported by a big toroidal power supply.

      When she drummed her fingers, she did so in a rapid and intricate musical rhythm, and in perfect (and I mean *perfect*) time.

      I was entranced.

      She's brighter than I am. I'm a very good C++ progammer. I can write code that is efficient, functional and bug free. I'm capable of inventing algorithms, though not necessarily particularly amazing ones. I definitely see patterns in things, and I have an almost instinctive sympathy with machines. I'm nevertheless very articulate.

      She can pull algorithms out of nowhere, that are a perfect fit for the problem. She also has a non-trivial talent for maths, and she's very into computer music.

      We have amazing conversations.

      I've suspected that I might be marginally autistic for some time before I started reading about Aspergers syndrome in the media.

      I completed the questionnaire in Wired. I scored 34. My partner scored 28.

      In the not so halcyon days of yore, I actively rejected potential partners who lacked an interest in science and technology, or who lacked imagination in those areas. The only fiction I can read is science fiction. One of my favourite films is Contact, which I particularly like because of its investigation into the part that faith (with a small F) plays in science.

      Go figure.

    2. Re:a plague? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More elements from my past.

      In the technical drawing class at college, years ago, we were asked to draw a series of objects freehand. I did so, never having had any interest whatsoever in art. I drew perfect representations of the objects I saw. Not quickly, but they were perfect. Half the class, along with the teacher, refused to believe I'd drawn them. I drew another, to demonstrate. The teacher became annoyed and criticised me for taking too much time. In retrospect, and from years of experience and an appreciation of the necessity for figuring out other's motives, I think he felt intellectually threatened.

      There were numerous occasions where, with my first partner, I completely failed to understand her state of mind and the actions that arose therefrom. This ultimately lead to a split, although we stayed close friends. I've never been interested in primate dominance games, so my ego didn't get in the way, as it seems to with others. One of the things that appealed to her though, was the fact that I was intellectually different. It really tickled her that I'd hold several conversational threads at the same time. It also amused her that, if a conversation ended for whatever reason, I'd pick it up again several days later, exactly where I'd left off. I'd not noticed these things until we got together and she pointed them out to me.

      I always eat my food in a certain way, one item at a time. I don't like it when there are too many heterogeneous things munged together, like peas in mashed potatoes. Both my brothers have this trait. One's a very good car mechanic, and the other plays a mean clarinet.

      I worked for a mediocre corporation for several years, and in that time I almost went mad from frustration. My teammates with one exception didn't seem to care about what they were doing. Politics and empire building went on all around me but I just didn't notice, until a friend spent considerable amounts of time on the task of helping me recognise what was going on. I was still very uninterested, and it wasn't until I started a contract software business with my current partner that I really appreciated the need. Now, I think I have a reasonable understanding of the human factors involved in work, but I'm very analytical about them.

      Religion. Religion has always been a misfit with my mindset. If I try to encompass a religious mindset, it just pops out again like a faulty videocassette. I'm just too analytical to be able to buy any of the existing religious world-views.
      I remember being invited to a house by a group of baptists who were trying to convert me to Christianity. I'd gone along out of interest (I'm usually open to an interesting debate). I asked one, a teacher, how the notion of free will was compatible with an omniscient and omnipotent being, when that being, in the act of creation, is responsible for everything that subequently transpires. I failed to get an interesting or convincing answer. I think that's the closest I've ever come to any kind of revelation :-)

      As a teenager, I really didn't know how to interact with others. I dind't know what moved them, or what they wanted from me. It was a frightening, confusing and lonely time. I became obsessed by the idea that I was the only provable conscious entity in (my :) universe. I completely lacked any emotional connection with other people.

      These days, socially, and relatively, I'm functional. I can be very charming, and very funny. I'm still very obsessive and rather routine bound. I dislike change. I still don't go out of my way to make friends. I know a number of people who I think fit the neurotypical bill, and they're nice people, but they seem incredibly lacking in any real understanding. Our respective world-views are a misfit. They believe in fuzzy crap like Dualism, and I can explain certain things to them, and they'll just fail to get the idea. If the topic is a little too far outside their experience, they'll frequently react with amused derision, because they lack the mental tools to evaluate my own intellectual stance. When I'm with them I feel like a Morlock, surrounded by Eloi. They just don't care about technology, and they regard my interest as strange, forgetting that they exist because of little things like the industrial and agricultural revolutions.

      Show's over, folks. I'm done :-)

    3. Re:a plague? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I woudn't say that mild Autism (i.e. Asperger's) goes away by itself. I would rather say that sufferers of Asperger's manage to cope with their problems, and can hence live a normal life.

      P.S. As an aside, an interesting thing I have noticed is a correlation between the criteria for diagnosing Asperger's and the criteria for INTP/INTJ Jungian character archetypes.

    4. Re:a plague? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree when you say "sufferers of Asperger's manage to cope with thier problems." Some do, at least externally. Others are unemployeed. Try to find a job when you go to an interview, won't look the interviewer in the eye, insult him unknowingly, etc. An interview - even in technology - is all about social skills. What happens if you don't have the technical skill (not all aspies do!)? It is even worse.

      Second, as for saying that it is similar to the "INTP/INTP" personality types, your facts are wrong, too. Personality has NOTHING to do with autism or Asperger's. Personality is how we WANT to live. An extrovert, for instance, WANTS to talk with people. An autistic can be an extrovert, too (and there are many that are). The problem isn't the personality type. It is that they are socially incompetant - they can't do it even though they want to.

      The happiest autistics probably are introverts, true. But not all are. This is one of the huge distinctions between geekiness and autism/asperger's - geekiness is a personality type; autism/asperger's is a different set of capabilities.

      I know what I'm talking about here. I'm autistic and know many other autistics and aspies.

    5. Re:a plague? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey,

      "bringing a plague down on the best minds of the next generation"

      I have some symptoms of autism (I'm sure I'm not alone), and have done a fair bit of reading on it. It seems very common that with autisms come some very great intellectual gifts - eg. Rainman. Some these kids need a lot of help, but I have to question whether autism is really a curse.


      I gather the plague arises when all the geeks with mild autism congregate in one area, then inbreeding causes the mild autism to turn into severe autism. Severe autism makes the geeks of the next generation even less socially capable than us, and hence they don't reproduce. Within a generation or two, there are less mildly-autistic-but-good-programmer genes; it could act as a plague on the minds of the next generations.

      As to your question about autism being a curse: In Rain Man, Raymon estimates the cost of a candy bar as 'About a hundred dollars', and the value of a car as 'about a hundred dollars'. If you were like this, it could cause problems if you, for example, were buying some candy.

      Just my $0.02

      Michael

    6. Re:a plague? by schussat · · Score: 2
      I have some symptoms of autism (I'm sure I'm not alone), and have done a fair bit of reading on it. It seems very common that with autisms come some very great intellectual gifts - eg. Rainman. Some these kids need a lot of help, but I have to question whether autism is really a curse.

      The article in this case notes that 70% of those with autism suffer from "mild to severe mental retardation."

      You know what's really funny about slashdot? Post an academic article that somehow speaks to geek culture or nerd economic issues, and there are uncountable cries of "pinhead academics don't know us! They can't tell us about our world!"

      But post one article about autism, and all of a sudden everybody here is a friggin' master of abnormal developmental psychology. Go geek imperialists!

      -schussat

      --
      The hour of noon has passed. Let us go and get some Kentucky Fried Chicken.
    7. Re:a plague? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This article lead me to believe that perhaps I have a light case of this, but then the more I thought about it, that's pretty broad. I'm smart, and I have weaker than average social skills. I can pay attention to detail. However, I have a wide variety of interests, due mostly to my mother making me do things other than what I wanted to do at the time (play violin, choir, theater) and this helped eventually.

      Then, doing sports, mostly running/lifting sports helped me even further, and I gained social acceptance somewhat. I was a running fanatic. No one has mentioned the possibility of athletes having this. Being off in their own little world of sports...


      Anyway, I suspect that kids who were shy, but intelligent like I was (I'm pretty sure I don't fit the mold), could end up being misdiagnosed with this disorder, and then end up thinking that something was wrong with them. That would not be good. Why didn't wired wait until one of those studies was completed, so that we could read and decide for ourselves.

      I think this is premature for a discussion, and that it probably boils down to a correlation between smart people having a problem relating to others of lesser intelligence. So what else is new?

      Pardon the offtopicity

    8. Re:a plague? by sjames · · Score: 2

      The article in this case notes that 70% of those with autism suffer from "mild to severe mental retardation."

      Standardized IQ tests have a history of being biased by unwarranted assumptions. I have to wonder if the low scores of the 70% might have more to do with a radically different motivation and socialization (or lack therof) in the test subject than with 'intelligence' (a term whose definition seems impossable to nail down anyway).

      Consider the difficulty of finding out how well someone can do on a set of test problems when they refuse to acknowledge you and consider you less interesting and worth pleasing than a floor lamp.

    9. Re:a plague? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got a low IQ, haven't you?

      You can pick 'em up from a megaparsec.

    10. Re:a plague? by sjames · · Score: 2

      You've got a low IQ, haven't you? You can pick 'em up from a megaparsec.

      Actually, no. Perhaps I CAN pick 'em up from a megaparsec, but you could stand to work on that.

  47. Stupid People by Bigbiff · · Score: 0

    Ah, so thats why we haven't won over on natural selction. We need the stupid people to have our kiddies! ;)

    --
    Bigbiff http://www.exxtreme-linux.org
  48. Slashdot Vanity at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Software developers at Silicon Valley are the smartest people on earth.

    I know it's comforting to think that such intelligent people have never before been assembled into one place, but it simply isn't true.
    University Professors for example, are considerably more intelligent than the average software developer. And don't forget how few workers at a Silicon Valley firm actually develop software. Every company also requires HR, accounting, management, etc., all of which you might expect to drag the IQ level down.

  49. Not autistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Perhaps the children are not autistic but rather, after years of uninvolvement with their Geek parents (who are too busy working/hacking/surfing the 'net) they've withdrawn into themselves as a protection.

    Who do you think is hurt when both parents work 80 - 90 hours a week?

  50. I'd love to chat with you guys about this... by kcbrown · · Score: 2
    ...er, well, okay, actually I wouldn't love to chat with you guys about this...

    But either way I have to get back to coding.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  51. anybody here? by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, according to my family, I was a pretty happy and good kid until 2, then "it" started. I was unruly and unmanageable, and just not "ordinary". I was diagnosed as autistic, and supposedly highly intelligent. Most of my problems were behavioural (tantrums, outburts,etc) and later I was "hyperactive". I spent most of late childhood/early adolescence on medication.

    Now I am in my late 20's and can honestly say that I am of average or even above-average intelligence, and pretty much fit the description of any of those children. I will admit that pop-culture diagnoses like those in the article are like reading horoscopes alot of the time, but then I see this "social interactions, motor skills, sensory processing, and a tendency toward repetitive behavior" and "Marked impairment in the use of nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction."

    It friggin sucks to be like this when others are around. I feel fine when its just me, alone. Then I am "normal". Or maybe it's all another marketable designer disease to capitalise on an information overloaded society. All those wired kids from (wealthy) wired parents ready for the diagnosing. Maybe our species is slowly evolving into specialised groups. We have races that developed along climatological and geographical lines to adapt to the environment, so I have no problem thinking that maybe this is just darwinian environmental pressures in action. There is alot of information out there, and alot of it is highly specialised, requiring a certain mind ( or wetware configuration?)

    I don't mean that people like this are superior or anything, although in the short-term it may have an advantage in our economy, but that is only on the scale of a few generations. I am thinking more in terms of ourselves as a species. We have "geeks", "atheletes", "artists" and the ever-numerous "sheeple", which have always been around to an extent, maybe our species is specialising in order to cope with the amount of information neccessary to survive.

    How many people can run a triathalon, code up a small mail agent, cook a gourmet dinner, perform simple surgery if the need arose, interpret the latest precedent-setting court case, sculpt a piece of greco-roman inspired art, and read a book to your kids at night? I don't know about you, but I have hard time just getting out of the bed, my stupid body refuses to hear the damn alarm clock sometimes ;)

    Anyways, I have shit social skills, avoid the company of others, and am basically a misfit. I am not pulling in the huge IT bucks, so despite my intelligence, I won't get the sexy AND intelligent wife, fast car, and nice clothes (in that order please).

    So, how many slashdotters out there are well-adjusted, sociable geeks (Hmm, oxymoron?), and how many of you are/have been diagnosed as being "different" from your fellow homo sapiens?

    < raises hand >

    1. Re:anybody here? by seanadams.com · · Score: 2

      It friggin sucks to be like this when others are around. I feel fine when its just me, alone. Then I am "normal".

      "The really hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal. [...] Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickess. [...] Any culture which, in the interests of efficiency or in the name of some political or religious dogma, seeks to standardize the human individual, commits an outrage against man's biological nature."

      -- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited

    2. Re:anybody here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates may be the richest man in the known universe, but I know many much poorer, dumber people that can get laid a heck of a lot easier than he could. Being super-intelligent/lack social skills may be fine for making money, but you will miss out on many of the best things in life.

      Being too balanced can lead to sheeple-ism, but being too unbalanced can lead to having an extremely pathetic life.

    3. Re:anybody here? by kubalaa · · Score: 1

      Get laid, are you kidding? He just has to snap his fingers. If you mean have a meaningful relationship, well of course that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

      --

      "If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show

    4. Re:anybody here? by bill_kress · · Score: 1

      A few years ago I came across a post on /. relating to something called "Programmers Stone", A set of documents helping programmers understand why they are different from most of the people they have to deal with.

      It turned into a set of papers on Autism, ADD and Geeks and how they think differently from those who aren't.

      Overall, this is a fantastic set of papers and I don't think you'll find better insight into these issues anywhere. If you are ADD, have a child who is ADD or possibly Autistic or you are just a programmer who would like to understand why his boss seems inconsistant at times--I can't recommend these papers more highly.

      http://www.reciprocality.org/Reciprocality/

    5. Re:anybody here? by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      Don't give up on it man. The key to social success all depends upon your desire for it. People become friends because of synnergy. There is no more scientific of a field than the art of mastering speech.

      For anyone who doesn't think that speech is a science; look up natural language programming. You can make a person feel exactly how you want them to feel with the mention of few words that are correctly formed. It's the one true science that I love. True programming because it's a true variable state machine. I don't view it as manipulation or some other immoral act because it all boils down to synnergy and the other persons desires. Learn how to speak and be a good friend, some people it comes natural too - others work at it; in the end you will benefit if you learn this skill. You won't have friends if you have nothing to offer them. Make sure you offer the counter-balance that you are willing to deliver. Having said all that, I'm a natural programmer. It's what I've always done and what I love to do. Programming a computer is always the same, dealign with people is a constant challenge and always requires problem solving and that is why it is so exciting and fun.

      Also, if you want to get a good grip on your body -- I recommend martial arts. Not only will it teach you to be comfortable with your movement inside your own flesh-suit but you will get over feeling awkward in your appearance around other people. If you are new to it, I would recommend Aikido or Tai Chi as they are not too physically demanding. For a notch up in intensity go for Tae Kwon Do or Karate, then Jiu Jitsu or another Brazilian art (very aerobic) and my personal favorite for a exhausting and strenous workout go for Kung Fu.

      On a side note, I was tested for retardatation because I didn't play well with others and would never listen to the teacher. I came back from the tests with an impressive IQ on a piece of paper and a grade advance.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    6. Re:anybody here? by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      Ya just really don't know. Perhaps, even with all his money, he couldn't get laid in a womans prison with a fist full of pardons.

      -

    7. Re:anybody here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gates has problems getting laid?

      All Gates has to do is pick up the phone, call the most exclusive and expensive escort service in America, and say "send your best girls over ... here's my credit card, my plane will be waiting".

    8. Re:anybody here? by gatesh8r · · Score: 1

      <raises hand>

      Absolutely! I for one am on a way to success, and I don't have to worry so much about "having x social skills so he can make it" -- this is not the point.

      <RANT>
      Everyone looks at autism is a Bad Thing(TM). It is merely the vantage point you look at it. Autism is so abstract it is difficult to pinpoint, diagnose, and more importantly *ACCURATELY* diagnonse! While one doctor may exclaim "Oh, but your child's severely autistic and won't make it into the world, and besides that, (s)he will be lucky to take a dump on a toilet!" another doctor may say "Your child's autistic, but mild. Don't worry about it, your child will be fine." So everyone stop panicing; sit down; chill. It's not known how it comes, and if you were autistic yourself, would you care? I'm autistic, and I don't care how it starts. And no, it's not MMR/secretin/apples/milk/whatever fuck you too. :-P I bet if they saw what was going into my stomach, the next cause for autism would be caffeine! The amount of paranoia about autism is enough to make autistics themselves pissed, irritated, irate, upset, sad, and/or suicidal. Autism isn't a Bad Thing(TM) -- it can very well be a Good Thing(TM).

      Let me explain further: Everyone isn't "normal". There is x anomoly that deviates from what an European-based society calls "normal". The autistic community on-line at least refers to those not on the autism spectrum as "Neuro-Typical" or NT for short. "Normal" as we see it is an utopia, which I'm sure a lot of psychologists would agree. People use their own skills and attributes to deal with life, and autistics are no different. afaik, I am a homo sapien. ;-) I am human, and I have flaws. Those who read this are also human, and have flaws. My flaws rest in communication, where others may have other flaws. This is human nature. I have skills, too. I'm in IT; I can code in C/C++, perl, and on a couple archatures in assembler. I secure routers and am working on a CCNA. Other people have other skills, and it makes the world go 'round.

      So why the witch hunt for autistics? What did we do? Do we deserve to be hunted down and turned into mindless people so we become NT? Who says that's the way to go? Could be our traits is what's next in evolution; you don't know!
      </RANT>

      (I agree with Alan Cox -- there should be a rant tag in HTML :-)

      --
      Karma whorin' since 1999
  52. Beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a very interesting article,
    But what i miss (and yes im going to read the article again, ofline and with a cup of coffee) Is the part that explains how much the upbringing of the child is responsible for its development of autistic behavour. Not all the autistic bebaviour is coded in genes. The human brain can adapt itself to the environnement, with young children even very fast.
    What you dont have, you can't teach your children, so the I thing the parents atleast have some autism their self, what give's them a bit of a lack in social skills. Or that they are not at home enough so the child grows up in its own environnement that it creates to fit his needs.

    Well i wish English was my first language because i cant seem to say what i want. But who needs Social contact anyway, I thougt that was reserved for none Beta's

  53. Psychology and the scientific method by awol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Having dealt with _many_ psychologists at the undergraduate level, particularly in the teaching of statisitics and computing, I feel comfortable saying that it is the science (and I use the word loosely) in which the scientific method fails to rear its head most frequently.

    Articles like this are exactly the kind of crap that fail to distinguish correlation from causation. That is assuming that there is some empirical evidence to suggest that there is an actual rise, a fact which the article supports with:

    [For Rick Rollens, former secretary of the California Senate and cofounder of the MIND Institute, the notion that there is a frightening increase in autism worldwide is no longer in question. "Anyone who says this epidemic is due to better diagnostics," he says, "has his head in the sand."]

    rant
    Now theres an objective analysis from a double blind researcher NOT. And only last night I saw the South park episode where all the kids are given Ritilin. Alternative therapy - gee well maybe there aint nothin' wrong with most of them so just leave them alone and let them work out via peer groups that you shouldn't wear stupid clothes for a bet. Most of us geeks got a bit of a kicking when we were at school and whilst it is not ideal it is pretty much human behaviour 101 that we attack that which makes us feel insecure and from my experience the most attacking were the most insecure so "get over it"
    \rant

    --
    "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    1. Re:Psychology and the scientific method by DGolden · · Score: 2

      Having "more statistics" doesn't really matter much, if the statistics are badly done. "There are three kinds of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics". Also having "more references" doesn't mean much - if the stuff people are referencing is crap - in fact, I've noticed, particularly among the "sciences" of economics, social studies, and psychology, a tendency for big groups of people to produce referencing love-ins, where they all reference eachother to make their papers look more authoritative.

      As a mechanical engineer who has gone out with a couple of psychologists, I can confirm that the sort of crap that psychologists are taught is 95% pseudoscience compared to physics and chemistry. HOWEVER - the situation is improving, thanks largely to brain-scans (i.e. physicists) and biochemists getting involved.

      Personally, I don't think psychology will be worth all that much as a *science* until we have real-time monitoring of brain processes at a very fine level of detail compared to today. As a body of knowledge composed of ad-hoc empirical rules, however, it's already working well enough for sheeple-control - i.e. we've already had the initial "industrial revolution" of psychology, and it's about as far along as early physics, with some things that a right and lots of things that are just plain wrong, that have yet to be whittled away by proper application of the scientific method.

      --
      Choice of masters is not freedom.
    2. Re:Psychology and the scientific method by hafcaf · · Score: 1

      "As a mechanical engineer who has gone out with a couple of psychologists" ...

      It's nice to see that conclusions about the state of psychology and psyc education are backed up by good empirical evidence!

      -- hc

      --
      -hc- I always get the shakes before a drop...
    3. Re:Psychology and the scientific method by iconian · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is not with Psychology but with the intepretation of Psychological research by media and folks like yourself. If you read any well-written research journal paper, you'll know what I'm talking about. Most Psychology choose their words carefully and make conservative intepretation of the data in their papers because of blunders of wild interpretations made by early Psychologists such as John Watson. The media has a tendency of distorting Psychological findings (as with any science) to make it interesting or understandable.

      I'm not sure what school you went to but the Psychology research methods and stats (2 courses)at my school are carefully taught. In the upper level Psychology classes, we are trained to critique and recognize biases in scientific journal. In fact, I have trouble reading even NYTimes articles without the urge to tear it up.

      As a student of Psychology and Biology, you are making a gross generalization when you suggest Psychology is not a science. Psychology is a broad field. What people have to know is that Psychology != Emotions. Cognitive Psychology for example rarely deals with "feelings" at all (which is actually a fallacy of the field if you think about it because emotions affect how you process information). Like any science, Psychology has also an early history of poor science. (Look up Aristotle & Anatomy or Da Vinci & Flight.) Unfortunately, when people think of Psychology, people narrowly think of Sigmund Freud, sexual repression, etc. Freud WAS NOT a Psychologist. None of his work at the time under went testing. He made his claims and people took it for truth just because it made sense to some people. If you argued with him about the Oedipus complex, he would use circular logic and say "you just have unresolve issues with your mother. That's why you can't accept my claims." Most of Freud's claims has been refuted. His work is rarely mentioned past Intro Psychology courses.

      Know what you are talking about especially if you are going to criticize a particular field of science. If you are going to make generalizations, back them up with specific examples. Know your sources of a work that you are reading, if possible, read the original.

    4. Re:Psychology and the scientific method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well , you can always observe them in their natural habitat at university.

      They are CONSTANTLY talking about anal retention. Obviously their lecture notes are stored in the psych lecturer's butt, extracted, copied, and then leaves in the arseholes of all of the students.

      And arts students have the least amount of contact hours for anyone. It's a disgrace.

    5. Re:Psychology and the scientific method by iconian · · Score: 1

      You quote:

      "There are three kinds of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics".

      Yet you used stats when you say:

      psychologists are taught is 95% pseudoscience

      You said:

      Also having "more references" doesn't mean much - if the stuff people are referencing is crap

      Yet you reference to the psychologists you've gone out with which is probably not the most unbias reference.

      Now that I've lowered your high testosterone mechanical engineer mind a bit, I will present my argument. :)

      If we only studied the brain based on real-time monitoring of EVERY SINGLE individual neuron of the brain, we wouldn't get anywhere. It's akin to studying how your favorite OS works by monitoring every transistor in your computer. Psychology is like reverse-enginering the brain. You draw inferences how it works by poking at it for responses. Direct observation will help support theories but they won't replace the current techniques of getting behavioral responses. Is it neccessary to directly see each individual electron (I know, Heisenberg, blah blah) to understand how an organic chemistry reaction go?

      Each science has their own framework to understanding something. Physics is grounded heavily in math. Biology is not, nor is Psychology although I suspect computational models (neural nets) will be used more as processors get faster. As you go future into the miniscule scale of any science, observations become more and more indirect. We don't see subatomic particles directly but we can infer them from the way they bounce around.

    6. Re:Psychology and the scientific method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all of us were getting beaten up in school.

      Someone had to do the bashing also.

      That's my contribution to society.

  54. Every inteligent person is disabled in some way by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From famous painters who cut off their own ears, to the antisocial Einstein, there has never in history been a single gifted person that wasn't 'disabled' in one way or another. That's the main reason I'm proud to be schitzophrenic.

    The more skilled a person is, the less 'normal' they seem. Personally, schizophrenia has made it difficult to hold focused conversations. My mind just doesn't work in straight lines, but that also means I think of things that other people do not. While everyone else is focused on what they think the problem might be, I pull something out of left field and it makes sense.

    I personally don't believe that mental illness brings about superb abilites, but that it is the abilities that cause the brain to function in an abnormal way. The human form is the most adaptable creature around, and that applies to the mind as well. I believe that if the person chooses to be adept at something, their brain begins to work in a way that most suits the person. Of course that may mean some other skills are negated, that doesn't mean the excentricites of these people are a bad thing, only that in the eyes of society, something is wrong with them.

    I.E. If I was to go around mumbling to myself all day, people would believe I should be institutionalize. Not because I've done something wrong, just because they don't like the looks of it. In other words, the problem is not with the people (they can usually function just fine) but with societies' views on what a person should look, act, and be like.

    Just as it used to be considered a bad thing to be a geek, it is considered bad to act different. Now geekdom is seen as something good and benefitial and is pretty much accepted. One people realize the strange behaviors are a harbinger of talent, those types of people will eventually gain acceptance.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:Every inteligent person is disabled in some way by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 1, Troll

      Well I have to say that its great to be schizophrenic to a point.

      I think of left field things as well, however I am parinoid. This is a great disservice to all my creative abilitys in some situations.

      I can never fully trust someone, and it doesn't help that many people that were supposed to be close to me (mom and dad or lovers etc...) have stabbed me in the back.

      It's interesting to think that perhaps my brain is working with some different side effects. I can use it to my advantage sometimes but othertimes I can do nothing. I get bouts of parinoia so badly that I have panic attacks. Because I can think of so many left field things it drives me insane. Talking to myself, hearing voices, etc.

      So yes it can be a help, but it could also just turn into an indestingushable mumur like the above things I wrote.

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    2. Re:Every inteligent person is disabled in some way by squaretorus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Every inteligent person is disabled in some way"

      Nope. Everything has a flip side, you could say that while I'm advantaged by being tall because I can reach the hoop with a modest jump, I am also 'disabled' because I have to bend further which might hurt my back in the long term.

      In the geek community I regard this as 'I'm Ender' syndrome. I'M good at school, I'M better than my peers, I'M bullied - therefore I have the power to rule the known universe!!!

      Just because your a bit smarter than the rest of your class doesn't mean your in the ranks of picasso and hawking (hawking isn't in the ranks of hawking if we're honest). Being good at something is NOT the same as being great. I can paint - I sell the odd painting - they're better than 90% of the crap sold in low rent galleries. But they are pure turd compared to .

      Just because you can write a bit of decent code and you shit your pants when a woman asks you the time doesn't mean your autistic - it means you can write a bit of decent code and you have a social anxiety problem. Most are mild, and can be easily rememdied through counselling - mine was.

      Theres comfort in identifying with a disabled group. Everyone claims to be 'a bit dyslexic' - very few genuinely are. They just use it as a cover for the occassional mistake - its not my fault - I was born this way - and theres nothing I can do about it.

    3. Re:Every inteligent person is disabled in some way by RickHunter · · Score: 1

      One people realize the strange behaviors are a harbinger of talent, those types of people will eventually gain acceptance.

      You seem awfully optimistic. I'd say that once people realize this, you can expect people with strange behaviors to be discriminated against more, not less. People are already uncomfortable with talented individuals, if you haven't noticed. And while geeks may be 'cool' in movies and fiction, in real life, most people still consider geeks to be a class of person to be shunned.

    4. Re:Every inteligent person is disabled in some way by natersoz · · Score: 1

      I hope those "autistic's" up in redmond are reading this...

    5. Re:Every inteligent person is disabled in some way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, but you usually need to write "you're" instead of "your".

    6. Re:Every inteligent person is disabled in some way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps everyone stabs you in the back because you do something crazy?

    7. Re:Every inteligent person is disabled in some way by evilviper · · Score: 2
      I'M good at school, I'M better than my peers, I'M bullied - therefore I have the power to rule the known universe!!!

      I graduated with a 2.-something GPA... I was never bullied, and I have no delutions of grandure.

      Just because your a bit smarter than the rest of your class doesn't mean your in the ranks of picasso and hawking

      Did you see anywhere that I considered myself a picasso? My point (as I put pretty clearly) was that with every talent comes with some mental pecularity. I never said that everyone who talks to themselves can be the next picasso. So, where you got that impression is beyond me.

      Just because you can write a bit of decent code and you shit your pants when a woman asks you the time doesn't mean your autistic - it means you can write a bit of decent code and you have a social anxiety problem. Most are mild, and can be easily rememdied through counselling - mine was.

      As I VERY CLEARLY pointed out, I have no problem getting along in society. Secondly, I was clinically diagnosed, and my mother was institutionalized. It is not a case of social anxiety (where did I ever say I had a societial problem again? Please point that out...).

      Theres comfort in identifying with a disabled group. Everyone claims to be 'a bit dyslexic' - very few genuinely are. They just use it as a cover for the occassional mistake - its not my fault - I was born this way - and theres nothing I can do about it.

      I have heard people (after writing something backwards) say 'whoops, I'm a little dyslexic'. However, I never met a single person who legitimately meant that they were actually dyslexic. Just as everyone who's late for work that says "I'm dead" does not actually think their boss is going to murder them. In this case, I don't think the world's confused, I think it's just you.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:Every inteligent person is disabled in some way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you often write things backwards, mistake numbers, confuse left and right, easily get confused with east and west, write words with the spelling reversed, and confuse 18 and 81 while watching sports, I call that a disability, while also some other odd behavior is also exhibited I do believe more people claim to have these disorders than really do. As for ADD, it is heavily over diagnosed but their are quite a few people with this and it is serious. Hell as a child my parents thought I was retarded because i did not start talking until I was 3 when my older sister was speaking at 9 months, we all have slight disabilities. People considered LD are those with pronounced disabilities, My older sister and I both had LD's, she had ADD which could have been predicted by her early behavior and inability to concentrate. On the other hand they thought I had ADD but they documented possible dyslexia as I had weird development, my strange trance-like behavior, my ability in 2nd grade in math and science was that of an average 10th grader, my ability to memorize certain things was that of a 23 year old but in other areas of memory I had the ability of a 4 year old, or my extremely poor reading and writing skills. My older sister and I both had these problems and spend time in the resource room but we are both highly intelligent and have common sense. My younger sister is also extremely intelligent, also quite odd, but no disability and no lack of ability, but she has no common sense. Everybody has issues with certain things it is just those who have more severe issues generally are greatly skilled in other areas.

    9. Re:Every inteligent person is disabled in some way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think wierd thoughts I might not otherwise think when I'm high

    10. Re:Every inteligent person is disabled in some way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just because your a bit smarter than the rest of your class doesn't mean your in the ranks of picasso and hawking (hawking isn't in the ranks of hawking if we're honest).

      Yes, indeed. How in the world could someone like Stephen Hawking aspire to be recognized at the level of someone like, say, Dr. Hawking?

      Those people who aren't perfect are certainly annoying to those of us who are perfect.

    11. Re:Every inteligent person is disabled in some way by Bongo · · Score: 2

      Theres comfort in identifying with a disabled group.

      I know we're getting way OT here, but as you've mentioned this, I'm reminded of my wife, who is studying/practicing sign language.

      Her course covers "Deaf Issues" and "Deaf culture". She is being taught that a lot of deaf people want sign language to be recognised as an official national language (here in the U.K.)

      Also, more interestingly, on the issue of using medical proceedures to "correct"[1] deafness in children, many deaf people are against it. They would rather that deafness be recognised as a cultural (and natural) condition, and that it be called Deafness (capitalised), maybe as a sign of respect, like you capitalize the names of countries.

      It's an interesting question, which forces one to reveal their values. Do you value cultural diversity where no-one and no-thing are meant to be better or healthier than anything else? Or do you take a modern, "common sense" approach, whereby you believe that everyone wants to make money and being deaf just reduces your employment opportunities ?

      In a sense, this whole debate (call me pretentious) is about the war between these two values/POV. Is mild autism merely a natural cultural diversification (oooh, long words, must be bollocks), or is it a disease, a discomfort for its sufferers and their relatives, that impedes their having a "normal" modern life?

      [1] "correct" being itself a value judgement

      I love the smell of political incorrectness in the morning. --K.W.

  55. This still doesn't explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...why CmdrTaco is from Michigan, and not the aformentioned Silicon Valley.

  56. Autism and Asperger's Syndrome by herwin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've worked with children with these problems, both prior to and during my PhD in neuroscience. The rate data cited appear to indicate a combination of genetic and environmental causes similar to those seen for most diseases, including most cancers. Note that untangling environmental and genetic causes can be difficult--twins share a womb, so maternal effects (which are environmental) might be scored as genetic.

    On the other hand, genetic susceptability, triggered by something environmental, seems indicated. The mechanism could be one of a couple of processes: neural development or the development of neural connectivity (the brain adjusts its general connectivity to handle the range of sensory input that it receives, and it also rewires itself slowly during learning). The evidence for miswiring in these syndromes is strong enough that it probably isn't just something learned, but instead something about the development of the brain. And that's bad. It could reflect patterns of stimuli, but it more likely involves chemistry.

    It's definitely worth following up.

  57. The poetic solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I like them fluffy - I know it's bad taste -
    With fluffy soft looks and a flower at the waist,
    With golden hair flying, like mist round the moon
    And lips that seem sighing, "You must kiss me soon,"
    Not huffy, or stuffy, not tiny or tall,
    But fluffy, just fluffy, with no brains at all.

  58. Re:Spread that Christmas Cheer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God bless you, sir!

  59. fascinating by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ...says another Aspergerian 'Mr Spock'...

    This is a _good_ article. It covers all the bases- has the guts to see that people on the spectrum are capable of things that stun and astonish NT humans- and isn't afraid to also confront the fact that this comes at a price- if we breed as if we were some superior race, we are FSCKED, producing children who... well, if we are 'overclocked' then our potential kids can be 'thermal meltdown', virtually incapable of functioning. A daunting thought... and we are the LEAST capable of humans, as far as dealing with heavy personal needs of others.

    We've always been around. The whole stereotype of the Eccentric German Professor is pure autism. Albert Einstein dealt with this sort of thing- for instance, he couldn't remember his own phone number. "Why should I when I can write it down?" People say that what he could remember, most people couldn't even imagine- at the same time, the guy couldn't remember his own phone number! It's not simple eccentricity or wilful decision to flout the expectations of society. It's NOT just PR.

    My favorite way of describing it is subroutines. Most people are more pre-emptive- those of us who are far out along the spectrum can hit amazing peaks of 'processing' but don't necessarily have the control over when it's happening. If that happens to me, I might go and get something and immediately not know what I was getting. At the same time, I also don't know what my mind is processing- it's in a subroutine, doing something that I don't know what it is. Solving some problem I might think of another day. In the immediate moment, I'm standing there looking like a fool. If it was just going to the fridge or whatever this would be less of a problem. I don't drive anymore- it took me too long to figure out that I dropped into subroutines even at the wheel- and five seconds between 'interrupts' isn't enough for driving. Fortunately I never hurt anybody- I'm not risking it any longer, license expired of old age and I'm not getting a new one.

    What do I get to balance out these problems? Some stuff that's paid off a lot of the stress of getting this far. Some things that are subjective, some that are objective. Thankfully, self-awareness: we're as capable of self-awareness and wisdom as anybody, given the right information. I'm 33, so for most of my life the information I was given was 'you're just not trying to get along!' or some such crap. Better to know the truth with its curses AND blessings.

    Nothing like a personal interest... anyhow, I think this is a really good article.

    Marriage? Children? Not my problem- I ended up failing at being heterosexual, and discovering I could be gay just as easily, even be considered a hottie (most unexpected!). I've ended up mated with a guy, no desire to produce or raise children- if it wasn't for that I'd doubtless be a bachelor until I died. My 'line' will die with me.

    ...except: I release code under the GPL. I also share my ideas- have a serious hangup about withholding them, charging for them etc. This puts a real damper on my prospects of ever being rich- but my ideas DON'T have to die with me.

    I wonder how many of the important Free Software people are autistic? Is it that a level of autism ironically helps people understand and see deeper social benefit precisely BECAUSE we don't have the whirl of normal social interaction to distract us from what we're really doing? For a Bill Gates, this turns him to the dark side and he responds by rejecting it- 'OK, all the toys must be mine!' and doesn't have normal social restraints to suggest to him that this is bad. For a Richard Stallman, this turns him towards dedicated, unyielding determination to maximize social benefit at all costs- at the expense of his day-to-day social contacts, and the patience of those around him. Either way it's more focus than most people ever see, and that's the secret of it... a lot of people seem ready to make all sorts of compromises in their lives, that an autistic person may not be able to make. Which is a weakness and a strength- look at what RMS has been able to do by being singleminded..

  60. Jealous Psychologists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems that children who excel and break away from the norm are labeled as being disabled rather than
    geniuses. Those who would accomplish much will always have petty "experts" trying to tear them down...of course if you ignore the experts, you would obviously be labeled as a nut, etc. but you probably could end up doing great and wonderful things.

  61. Not true by HanzoSan · · Score: 1, Interesting


    Dont compare someone with diabeties or cancer to someone with Autism.

    Someone with a REAL disease which they can die from needs help.

    Someone with Autism doesnt need "Help", Never usually asks for help, and usually has unwanted help forced on them ALL the time.

    Autism is more compareable to someone who has a short temper, or who is depressed. This is not always someone who needs "help".

    Mike Tyson, I'm sure he could use some anger management classes, but for a boxer, his anger is what made him champion of the world.

    Sometimes helping people who dont need it actually harms them (drugging them up in school, forcing them to see psychologists) etc etc.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Not true by Marcus+Brody · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dont compare someone with diabeties or cancer to someone with Autism.

      If you actually read what I was saying, you would understand that I was comparing the genetic/environmental causes of these disorders, rather than comparing them at a medical/sociological level. Which is quite valid, because there are similarities between the causes.

      Someone with a REAL disease which they can die from needs help.

      Autism is a "REAL" disease, for fucks sake. Just because a disease is psychological and does not appear to be an immediate threat, it does not mean it isn't a problem.

      Take your example of depression. A lot of depressed people commit suicide. Other than bringing to an end all the potential of their future life, it also has consequences for family, friends and colleagues. A lot of depressed people refuse treatment. A lot of idiots think depressed people should "pull their socks up", "knock it off", "stop attracting attention", etc. However, depression is a serious, medical disorder which should be treated by appropriate means - counselling, cognitive psychology, seratonin reuptake inhibitors, etc. Leaving them in a depressed state is not fair. Ever been depressed? It's not enjoyable, I can tell you. Ever had a family member who is depressed? Its not enjoyable, I can tell you. Ever had a work colleague with depression? They are not very productive. Ever seen someone for whom Prozac worked, without side affects? The change is profound and beautiful. You see the person come back to life.

      Yes, maybe i am pushing my definition of social normality onto other people. But in certain cases it is hard to argue how not doing so is of benefit to that person. Sure, if somebody is a bit *special*, and is happy, fulfilled, and of no harm to themselves and others, then fine. If they could be helped in some way - help them. I don't see what the problem is here.
      You're choice of depression was not a good one. It is a largely misunderstood disease. However, there is a deep philosophical point you were trying to make. At what point does someone need help? Where, on the scale from normality to disease, should we intervene? Should we help people who refuse treatment, even when the refusal is a consequence of this disease? Is the reason for treatment limited to the person involved, or should we take a wider stance, and consider the consequences of disease and subsequent treatment on society?
      These are difficult questions. You and I cannot answer them. I am not even sure if society can answer them. I guess this is an example where democracy is an imperfect solution, but it's the best solution we've got. Opinions?

      Mike Tyson, I'm sure he could use some anger management classes, but for a boxer, his anger is what made him champion of the world.

      Um, maybe if he had taken anger management courses, he wouldn't have ended up in prison, and hurt those around him. This is exactly the point I am trying to make.

    2. Re:Not true by uebernewby · · Score: 2

      Dont compare someone with diabeties or cancer to someone with Autism.

      Someone with a REAL disease which they can die from needs help.


      Yes compare someone with diabetes or cancer to someone with autism. It *is* a real disease with empirically diagnosable brain disfunction.

      The same, incidentally, is true for clinical depression: you'll find decreased levels of serotonin in a person who suffers from it.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    3. Re:Not true by 198348726583297634 · · Score: 1

      Just a side note - it's disgusting that you'd say Mike Tyson's inability to control himself is a _good_ thing. You do know he went to prison for rape, right? Would you really rather have a champion boxer than someone you could trust to walk your sister to her car?

    4. Re:Not true by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      The Mike Tyson thing was a poor analogy. How about this? Would Van Gogh been an artist if Prozac had been available? Would Eistein discovered what he had discovered if he had spent his childhood under the care of "specialists" to treat his autism? Would Gore have invented the Internet if he had good people skills? (cheap shot, I'm sorry :-)

      The point is that what makes some people "great" also, by definition, makes them different. It is unfortunate that the opposite doesn't necessarily hold true; being different isn't enough to make one "great". Tyson can go back to jail for all I care (IMO, the only useful pupnishment for rape is castration) but it doesn't change the fact that he was the "best" in a barbaric sport and something inside him made him the best...

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    5. Re:Not true by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

      Dude everyone gets depressed, you think having the ability to get depressed is some kinda disease? Thats silly. Yes some people, and i mean a few, get suicidally depressed, however these people are RARE, these rare people do deserve treatment but most people dont. Your average anti social person does not have a problem however, someone who cannot communicate or even talk does have a problem. There are EXTREME cases which require EXTREME reaction. But 99 percent of all cases of these so called mental disorders wont be solved by shoving pills down their throat.

      If Mike Tyson had anger management he would not be champion of the world and he'd STILL be in jail for rape. Rape has nothing to do with anger, neither does commiting crimes now i suppose you will say all rapists and criminals have some sorta disease causing them to act this way and give them pills too?

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    6. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Would Van Gogh been an artist if Prozac had been available?

      Was his art worth making him suffer the awful depression for?

      Oh, and where the hell is everyone getting this idea that Einstein was autistic from? Or that he was even on the autistic spectrum? Nothing I know about the guy indicates any such behaviour. Come on.... you're not helping your argument with these daft examples.

    7. Re:Not true by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      People have been studying Einstein's brain, and they've found it to be different from most. If I remember correctly, it had enlarged areas where visual thought usually takes place.

    8. Re:Not true by Score+Whore · · Score: 2

      Boxing has nothing to do with anger any more than rape does. You may not admire Tyson, but being a skilled boxer requires a certain innate intelligence, dedication, self control, physical strength, coordination, and numerous other traits. Tyson has serious personality problems, but don't attribute his boxing ability to anger. His best years as a boxer were when his anger was being moderated by Cus. When Cus died so did Tyson's carreer.

    9. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idiot. rape has everything to do with anger.

      go learn something.

    10. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some psychological disorders may even act like gifts....for example, a bipolar person may be a great artist or writer who is capable of churning out tons of work in short periods of time when manic. You could argue that an autistic person is great in technical work...or many other skills....or a person with whatever disorder may also be gifted with the flip side of the coin....the question is....have some of the individuals who have changed technological and scientific and artistic history been also cursed with a disorder which led them down the path of their talents? If so, then maybe completely ending a disorder is NOT a good idea....because it's not a bug, it's a feature....

    11. Re:Not true by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      My concern is that there must be something different that makes some people better at certain skills. If no one was different there would be no one that was special (not in the new-age grade-school use of the term, but by the measure of their accomplishments.)

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
  62. confounding factors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of work has been put into trying to link some 'hard' (unequivocal e.g. leukaemia) with lots of things - power lines, nuclear reactors etc. They have never succeeded, but one trend which has become obvious is a that some diseases (e.g. leukaemia) are more common in areas which have had large influxes of populations e.g. dam construction etc.

    Trying to do the same with a 'soft' diagnosis like Autism or ADHD is almost bound to to fail, as there are so many other confounding factors. There is a tendancy for upper middle class people to want a label for their underperforming child, as this may give other benefits, and also implicitly states 'it's not the fault of the parents' particularly if the child spends a lot of time in childcare.

    A lot (?most) diseases are multifactorial - you have a genetic predisposition, and then something in the environment crosses the threshold which switches something on somewhere. We are getting somewhere with the genes, but we really don't know which environmental factors matter or not, except the massive ones e.g. smoking

    The key point is I guess that if something is associated with something else, it doesn't mean it is caused by it. If I say that high intake of junk food causes low IQ and poor housing, these may be an association, but it doesn't mean it causes it. (it could also cause programming behaviour....)

  63. Maybe - but ... by King+Of+Chat · · Score: 3, Insightful
    These days, surely being able to understand the technology and communicate is the ideal. Most IT project failures happen in the requirements stage (sorry, can't find good link, but 90% is the figure which sticks in the mind). That's a failure of the IT people to communicate with the customer. Remember that IT is not an end in itself, it is a tool (that should be popular round here). If your requirements are f**ked then your system is not likely to do anything which anyone wants. If that's the case, nobody will use it.

    There are a few people commenting on here how autism might actually be an advantage. Well, they clearly haven't come into contact with a seriously autistic child. It's not funny.

    The last thing that /. readers should be thinking is "oh, it's a condition with a name - that's alright then". By training and concentrating, it's possible to improve communication skills. Something which, in our industry, we should be doing.

    Last point: my authority to comment on this comes from:

    Working with actuaries. Most of them make the average IT person look like the life and soul of the party. We have real trouble communicating requirements with them.

    Having a stepdaughter with Aspergers. It is a frustrating problem for the child, but therapy can help.

    Saying all that, often I'd rather be coding device drivers than talking to people.

    --
    This sig made only from recycled ASCII
  64. Re:Pure bunkus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uh uh that terrible news
    it

  65. Consider the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wired? Give me a break. Look at this article on their main page about animal washing service. Call me autistic if you will, but I'm not paying attention to this story until a valid study is done, reported by a respectable news source.

    1. Re:Consider the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually there are much more respectable sources...

      I might retrieve the right references somewhere...

      People in our lab beign in large part from neurosciences, they are VERY interested in this story and we have been discussing it for quite some time now.

      I must say... if I look to many of my colleagues, I must say the asperger syndrome is quite possible (it is not exactlly autism, but it relates to your social hability and you capability of undestanding and perceiving emotions yours and the ones of others).

      Want it or not, these are important elements of human life. And are a major part of a happy life. If they can find cures to this syndrome (since it might affect so many people) it would certainly be an advance for the quality of life.

    2. Re:Consider the source by psych031337 · · Score: 2

      Can somebody please mod this guy down? I give him credit for disguising the goatse.cx as a wired.com link, but that's about it.

      --
      +++ath0
    3. Re:Consider the source by digaman · · Score: 1

      > Wired? Give me a break. Look at this article on their main page about animal washing service [wired.com]

      Give me a break. Wired magazine hasn't owned Wired News and wired.com for a couple of years now -- it's owned by TerraLycos: different companies, different staffs, different level of reporting and fact-checking... plus a licensing agreement to run stories from the magazine on their website. I think Declan McCullagh is brilliant and doing important work there, but I frankly can't imagine the magazine running this pet-washing article as its lead story (grin).

  66. A Theory by awol · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a thought about autism. And it was to some extent assisted by Rainman, but even more by a book called The October Child. It seems that deeply autistic persons, see the raw data from which the rest of us are shielded to avoid the kind of sensory overload that causes autistic persons to retreat into ritual and routine.

    For example, the Rainmain, counting toothpicks scene. We _all_ see the exact number of toothpicks but normal people have a filter which stops us from processing the raw data and as such we see "bunch of sticks" first and if we want detail then we concnetrate on extracting it. The autistic sees the raw data and knows it, but then they see the raw data in everything. Imagine how overwhelming that would be.

    Consider also the musical "idiot savant" the order and pattern in music is a refuge for them to help coope with the cacophony of data with which they must otherwise deal.

    Why is this relevant, well because maybe some of these filters are the result of socialisation by peers and by parents. It would seem that some of these kids are might be missing some of the processes that lead to this socialisation. Get any kid young enough and they will wear something stupid for a bet.

    (This is also an interesting prompt for a theme for a book, but that is my secret)

    --
    "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    1. Re:A Theory by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      hmmmm.....sounds a lot like watching the Matrix on your green monochrome plasma displays...

      of course, all I see is blonde, bruenette, redhead...

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    2. Re:A Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another interesting story is the two 7-year old Autistic chilren, who were playing a game where they counted up in a seemingly random pattern (one would say a number, the other would then say a slightly larger number, etc). It was quite a while before somebody realised that they were listing prime numbers (up to an incredible number of digits).

    3. Re:A Theory by Arrgh · · Score: 1
      Actually, it's more likely that autism (remember, "aut" = "self") is, at least in part, an inability on the part of the affected person to infer the existence of a mind in others.

      While they may be conscious of more details of the world, that in itself is not causing problems--they just don't realize that other people are actually people "just like me" who can be communicated with, etc.

      See this bit on the so-called Theory of Mind.

    4. Re:A Theory by J.+J.+Ramsey · · Score: 1

      I'm familiar with the "Theory of Mind," and as an autistic myself, I'd have to say that it doesn't quite wash as an explanation of what is the core of autism.

      For example, when playing hide-and-seek, Temple Grandin (relatively famous autistic, mentioned in the article) would make a decoy by taking off her jacket and stuffing it with leaves, leaving it out to distract the kid who was 'it' (the one looking for the
      other kids who were hiding). Only those who understand that others have minds could do that because pulling the jacket-as-decoy trick means knowing that the kid who's 'it' doesn't have the same knowledge as the one pulling the trick, which implies that the kid who is 'it' has a separate mind.

      Heck, even I know that others don't have my knowledge or know my thoughts.

    5. Re:A Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you learned that. "Normal" people are supposed to know it automatically.

  67. Radiations ? by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    As said, the zone has the highest developper concentration in the world.

    Also has to have the largest CPU Concentration, all Partially compliant with FCC rules on Radiations...(=> leaky)

    Everybody knows CPU leak waves, and some do remember that we are closing on the 3Ghz CPU (3Gig... Microwaves !)

    Does anybody have data on that ? I heard something like that a Looooong time ago, when the Commodore 64 had to be delayed because they had to re-shield the whole production...

    That and the pcb concentration in the area... nice DNA scrambler...

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    1. Re:Radiations ? by digitalunity · · Score: 1

      Microwaves(plural) seems to implie that you are speaking of Microwaves(as in Microwave food heating appliances); not as in microwave radiation which is a broad spectrum. Actually, microwaves operate on the principle of exciting a water molecule by subjecting it to microwave radiation at it's naturally reasonant frequency(or a harmonic, can't remember). In any case, this is around 2.1 or 2.2 Ghz. So, what happens if the P4 on your lap hits the reasonant frequency of water? Poof. Your legs swell up like hot dogs and kablooey!!!

      On a more serious note:
      Of course computers have lots of EMI. You can check out examples of EMI here and here..

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    2. Re:Radiations ? by sketerpot · · Score: 2

      Have you ever played an evolution simulation like Primordial Life (sorry, Windows only. Wine?)? You can play aroung with the mutation rate, and try to find somethig optimal. Too low, and your creatures will never get past simple things, too high and you will create ill-adapted dodos. Perhaps this radiation is raising the mutation rate in the world. Have fun....

    3. Re:Radiations ? by dachshund · · Score: 1

      Don't forget all the toxic nasties that come with computers. If I'm not mistaken, most Computer power supplies contain (or at least, used to contain) PCBs and other friendly chemicals, a small amount of which would waft into the air whenever they warmed up.

  68. What could this mean? by Cynikal · · Score: 1

    nothing.

    It's been my experience that nobody, anywhere, is not afflicted with *some* kind of mental/emotional/physical challenge.
    And i can prove it. If you take all the statistics and percentages of messed up people in this day and age, and add them up, 218% of the population are suffering from some sort of handicap...

    Hmm and you speak of offspring of programmers? Maybe you're talking to them in the wrong language. Of course they don't respond to english (Basic), go up to the kid and say "POP 0x665, JMP 0x4431" and see what you get, hmm?

  69. It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Chasing+Amy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hate to say this, but I think most of the disorders and non-bacterial, non-viral diseases that are on the rise are explained by two things: women's liberation and environmental contamination.

    The first might seem like a silly joke, but think about what's different today in the mating game from what was the norm in almost all of human history until it started changing in the last 60 years. Traditionally, marriage had little at all to do with common interests, and nothing to do with common professions. Male-dominated society meant that men would engage in professions and women, if they were in a working class, worked at common "women's jobs" like straight factory work or sewing or teaching/watching young children. People didn't marry because of anything they had in common. People usually married based on convenience, friendships between families, whoever lived nearby, whatever wife they could afford, etc.

    By contrats, today women and men meet, date, then marry, and most of the people they meet work in similar professions and therefore have similar interests and if those interests are determined genetically, similar genes. It's like a mild, remote form of inbreeding. More often than not techies marry techies, teachers marry teachers, scientists marry scientists, lawyers marry lawyers, etc. The result over time is to reinforce those genetic factors which are common between these people who have married and procrated thanks to common interests or employment. And if some of those traits have slightly negative side-effects, then those side-effects will become more pronounced. Add in this selective breeding over several generations, and well--you're looking at a pronounced enhancement of both the positives and negatives inherent in genes which cause one to have a predisposition towards certain vocations.

    Second, I think we can't deny that we've changed our environment significantly, particularly in the area of foodstuffs and radiation. We now eat more and more genetically enhanced food--some of it enhanced through centuries of selective breeding, such as the milk we drink and the meat we eat, and some of it more recently enhanced through artificial hormones which may leave traces in that food--such as, again, milk and meat, and now even some vegetable foods. For at least 6 years people have expressed concern that hormones in milk may be contributing to the progressively earlier ages at which girls are hitting puberty, and that perhaps the same hormones contribute to cancer. Whether that's true or not, surely some of our food additives and genetic enhancements have effects we cannot measure or imagine. I'm not saying to go organic--I liberally at such altered foodstuffs--but I am saying only a person with his head in the sand would refuse to realize that some of our alterations to our food, whether genetic or chemical, have to have effects we don't fully understand yet.

    The same is true of radiation. I'm not a nut who insists on not using cell phones because they allegedly cause cancer, but I do believe that with all the low-level radiation that passes through our bodies on a daily basis, at least a few particles eventually interact with our matter. This could easily explain the huge upswing in cancer over the last 40 years, as low-level radiation exposure has steadily increased. Before you dismiss it, think about how much radio, cell phone, television, cordless phone, microwave, and myriad other forms of man-made radiation passes through your body each day. Almost none of it interacts with you, since most of it can even pass cleanly through feet of concrete without interaction. But think of what a small antenna or dish it takes to get reception of so many radio, TV, satellite, or other channels, compared to the much larger size of your human body. What if only 1 in a billion of these low-energy particles interacts with your body? That's still a rather large interaction, when you consider the constant levels we experience day and night, even when sitting at home. What if it's only 1 in a trillion? Then it's still significant, given the constant bombardment. All it takes is one particle interacting with one cell to potentially cause a change that could spark a cancer. Given constant bombardment by so many low-level radiation sources, this has to be significant. We don't want to believe it, and usually dismiss it our of hand because we like our technology, but this is just so much sticking of heads in the sand. We're never going to give up our tech, even if it's the primary cause of cancer, but we could at least be honest about it when we look at it.

    Sure, there are genetic predispositions for things like cancer. We know this. But factors which are most likely environmental have increased cancer rates exponentially over the last 40 years. A genetic predispostion still needs a trigger. I think large amounts of low-level radiation are a likely candidate for this.

    Well, those are my theories, anyway. I know people are just lining up to disagree, so let's hear it! ;-)

    --

    Chasing Amy
    (We all chase Amy...)
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
    1. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Peter+Dyck · · Score: 2, Insightful
      and if those interests are determined genetically, similar genes.

      That's a big "if" you've got there.

      Obviously genes may have a role in determining what kind of tasks people find interesting, but I'd argue that this is simply due to the enhanced raw ability. In general, people find interesting only the tasks they're good at.

      It's the old debate whether the environment or the endogenic factors such as genes dictate how we'll turn out as human beings. In the case of diseases that have a clear genetic origin the negative effects of inbreeding have been well established. I would, however, tend to believe that for very high level functions such as career interests and social skills, the environment will play much more important role than the genes alone.

      My point is that I would be very careful in generalising any concepts from physiology (such as inbreeding) to psychology or sociology. Previous attempts such as the frenology do not bode well for this development.

    2. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by ab315 · · Score: 1

      I agree on the cell-phones. I don't use them.

    3. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't understand how I managed without a cell-phone before.

      It's cheap, it's always with me and allows me to screen calls and the radiated power is so low that it can't cause any physiological damage.

    4. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention "natural" flavors. Do you know what constitutes a "natural" flavor? It'll make you want to move to Djibuti.

    5. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Marcus+Brody · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interesting comment. I think you are quite right about the link between modern lifestyle (post industrial-revolution) and the rise in certain diseases.

      However, despite the persuasive argument, I have to disagree with this:

      It's like a mild, remote form of inbreeding.

      There is a compelling evolutionary argument that people subconciously select partners who are of a distinct genetic make-up. Alot of this debate has centered around "HLA haplotypes". These cell-surface antigens help the immune system distinguish between inate and foreign matter within the body. If everybody had the same HLA haplotype, it would be trivial for bacterial diseases to mimic the HLA type and thus sweep through the world population. Of course, diversity has evolved within HLA genes to stop this happening. Furthermore, the argument is that people purposefully mate with partners who have a different HLA haplotype and thus create new combinations of HLA genes. This will create a child much less susceptible to disease than an inbred child, who would have a HLA type similar to the rest of the family.

      This is quite a compelliung argument and may operate at other levels than HLA. Before someone argues "But why arent there lots of inter-racial mariages?", it has to be said that this proposed phenomenon would be extremely complex with many confounding socio-economic confounding factors. Furthermore, the jury is still out. Much of the molecular evedince has been confusing and contradictory.

      In summary, I think it is highly likely that mechanisms exist to stop exactly this type of "accidental inbreeding".

    6. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Marcus+Brody · · Score: 2
      Studies have been conducted on pheromones. Men actually wore shirts until they got all smelly. Then women smelled them. The ones they thought smelled good belonged to men with complimentary genes and immunities.

      From The Real Life Markeup Language (RLML) standard, revision III, subsection 7f.d:

      "Flag any sentence contianing the phrase "pheremone" as potential bullshit"


      How do you make a hormone? Dont pay her!

    7. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Ivan+Raikov · · Score: 1

      I'd say that stress is a lot more important factor (as far as cancer and heart disease are concerned) than electro-magnetic interference.

      I'm too lazy to look it up now, but wasn't there a famous experiment, which is believed to be the first demonstration of the effects of stress, when they were injecting mice with a certain chemical, and the experimenter discovered that the mice who got the most injections developed cancer, entirely unrelated to what they were being injected.

      And, of course, as our society is becoming more complex, the levels of stress increase.

    8. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by tzanger · · Score: 2

      "Flag any sentence contianing the phrase "pheremone" as potential bullshit"

      Alright, I'm no biologist, but I thought that pheremones were well proven in the insect world. I thought it was also proven that smells can induce responses in the brain on subconscious levels.

      As I said though, IANAB.

    9. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Marcus+Brody · · Score: 2
      IAAB ;-)

      You're right though. I was talking about this


      "Now, you can have the sexual secret of European men"
      ROFL - IAAEM


      Soon, all slashdot post's will become reduced to a PGP signature ;-)

    10. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Funny
      By contrats, today women and men meet, date, then marry, and most of the people they meet work in similar professions and therefore have similar interests and if those interests are determined genetically, similar genes. It's like a mild, remote form of inbreeding.

      That's an interesting point. I can imagine that in the worst case, the geeks will evolve to look something like chimpanzees, the jocks will become more like gorillas, and the politicians will begin to resemble orangutans.

    11. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by ichimunki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmmm. Physiology and psychology are so unrelated that they invented a whole field called psychiatry to study this merger between the physical and mental arenas

      The brain-- arguably the *only* place emotions and personality exists-- is itself made up of cells which are only interesting in that they constantly carry out a series of various chemical reactions.

      The brain is not dropped in whole by some external force, complete with skills and knowledge. In fact, it is grown according the "blueprints" contained in the DNA of the organism. The brain does not stop growing for several years after birth, which obviously allows it emergent interactions with the world to also have an effect on its growth-- especially at the chemical level certain balances of various compounds would seem to be critical in certain developments.

      Rather than being suspicious of any concept which generalizes from physiology to psychology, we should be suspicious of any psychology or sociology which does not take physiological matters into account. (And frankly, at this point sociology can do little more than describe the results of group behaviors-- maybe when psychiatry can more accurately determine how one individual achieves a state, then it can start to offer theorems as to how this works when there is a group-- I posit the two may even be intertwined and need simultaneous explanations. Or maybe I've been reading too much Asimov lately).

      However, we can obviously discount the majority of something like frenology because lumps on the outside of the head do not seem remotely causal to brain development, nor is likely they result specifically from distinct brain developments.

      So finally we are still left with the problem... can genetics determine careers? Well not exactly. But in a society such as that of the US, careers are highly focused activities, and access to many careers is limited through various vetting procedures (schools, unions, etc). Therefore only people with specific makeups are likely to enter those careers-- many of which *do* require a degree of specialization wherein specific aptitudes are quite indicative of future success.

      If a person is *extremely* good at math, then as long as they are socially able and financially have access to tools like a college education, it seems likely that along the way they will find a career which focuses that skill (on the assumption that they probably also *like* math enough to want to do it more than occasionally)-- hence they may well end up an actuarialist, or a financial analyst, or a cryptographer, or any other discipline closely related to raw math.

      This assumption can be extrapolated to many disciplines. And I think most of these underlying talents are genetically determined. So the suggestion to breed outside one's profession is not quite wide enough, perhaps. If you are heavily weighted to an "autistic" career type, you must choose another career type altogether-- unfortunately I'd say autistics are the least likely to do this.

      The evidence presented in the article seems to bear this out. Even if *all* of the genes that promote autism are recessive or the environmental factors that cause a leaning that way are unlikely, those genes and/or environmental conditions seem to be prominent in programming communities.

      This leads to a higher likelihood of getting double recessives in the phenotype *or* an increased likelihood that any environmental factors will not be countered by environmental variations in the homes where these children live. The fact that the families described are often double-earners with children spending plenty of time outside the home indicates to me that the determination is more genetic than environmental.

      Of course, I can also think of a few counter-arguments, ranging from "there is no problem, this is simply a newfound awareness" to "so suddenly it's concentrated in SiliValley-- is it decreasing elsewhere?" to "even if the kids are out of the home a lot, the parental environment, especially prenatal, immediately post-natal, and in terms of a majority of time spent in emotionally connective activity, is still a *huge* factor-- so we need to examine the environments as well as the genetics for commonalities in families where the syndrome occurs".

      --
      I do not have a signature
    12. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your assertion.

      How many people do you see who marry up or down?

      Not too many. People tend to marry people in the same economic or social range. Garbagemen don't marry doctors; Doctors don't marry hairdressers.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    13. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Pinball+Wizard · · Score: 2, Funny
      It's like a mild, remote form of inbreeding.


      Therefore, models should date geeks. Sadly, none of them are here to read this comment.

      --

      No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

    14. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Decimal · · Score: 1

      Well, according to your theory, there would have to be a large number of geek-girls on the market for the all of the geeks to breed with.

      If you ever figure out where this huge cache of geek-girls is, please let me know.

      --

      Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
    15. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Kupek · · Score: 3, Informative
      The women's lib stuff is bunk. All of it. Contrary to popular beleif, what this culture views as the "normal" family and social structure isn't quite normal. When you say "traditionaly," you're going back, what, 100 years, 500 years? Not far enough.

      From "The Way We Really Are," by Stephanie Coontz:

      One of the most common misconceptions about modern marriage is the notion that coprovider families are a new invention in human history. In fact, today's dual-earner family represents a return to older norms, after a very short interlude that people mistakenly identify as "traditional."

      Thoughout most of humanity's history women as well as men were family breadwinners. Contrary to cartoons of cavemen dragging home food to a wife waiting at a campfire, in the distant past of early gathering and hunting societies women contributed as much or more to family substinence as men. Mothers left the hearth to forage for food, hunt small animals, trade with other groups, or tend to crops.

      On this continent, neither Native American, African-American, nor white women were originally seen as economic dependents. Among European colonists, men dominated women, but their authority was based on legal, political and religious coercion, not on men's greater economic importance. The most common words for wives in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century colonial America were "yoke-mates" or "meet-helps," labels that indicated women's economic partnership with men. ... But in the early 1800s, as capitalist production for the market replaced home-based production for local exchange, and a wage-labor system supplanted widespread self-employment and farming, more and more work was conducted in centralized workplaces removed from the farm or home. ... Men (and older children) began to specialize in work outside the home, withdrawing from their traditional child-raising responsibilities. Household work and child care were delegated to wives, who gave up their older roles in production and barter.

    16. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Saige · · Score: 1

      Second, I think we can't deny that we've changed our environment significantly, particularly in the area of foodstuffs and radiation.

      Don't neglect the affect of environmental pollution on development. Certain types of pollutants have been shown to act very similarly to estrogens in the body, and areas with high concentrations of these types of pollution are showing higher incidences of infertility among male animals - especially amphibians - along with increased percentages of females being born, and higher rates of hermaphrodism.

      Now, if pollution can have that sorts of effects on animals, there's no reason to believe that it can't be doing similar things to humans, whether it be increased genital defects and more cases of transsexuality (which is almost definately on the rise), or autism, or cancer, or asthma, or whatever.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    17. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a software engineer.

      I am marrying a woman who works in the hardware department of a common home improvement chain.

      Of course, the fact that she is also my sex slave and needs me to spank her regularly plays into it somewhat...

      We will have a very traditional marriage.

    18. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      I can imagine that in the worst case, the geeks will evolve to look something like chimpanzees, the jocks will become more like gorillas, and the politicians will begin to resemble orangutans.

      I can't picture chimpanzee-like creatures writing, say, the Linux kernel. Perhaps a more relaistic idea is geeks like people today, but with less of the survival stuff and more brain. The jocks can magine looking like athletic gorillas, at least until the geeks take over, and as for politicians... only time will tell.

    19. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by gabbarsingh · · Score: 1

      Did it ever occur to anybody that in present times we have more data on the human species than ever. Your argument on women's lib fails because in those times anybody suffering from neurological disorder would be diagnosed mental and therefore assigned to a mental institution to die eventually.

      It's not women's lib, we just know more. We want to bring up kids no matter what their health condition is. We have all kinds of research going on. Who's to say that after anaylsing the human genome we can conclude that we all are mentally dysfunctional in one way or the other ;-)

    20. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      yes, both spouses contributed to a house hold, they had to. Also corect that women status(lack therof)cam about later.
      She is incorrect saying the change began in the 1800's however.
      I would like to point out that the men and womans role in the house hold where different.
      In a nut shell men where hunter, women where gatherers. Yes its a generalization, but it applies here.
      both roles critical to the "home" but both very different.
      Which means his point is still valid: men and women are not taking the "home" into consideration when getting married. Moslty because the key to sucess is money, not farming.

      please note I said "point", he could be way off
      or, not, I dn't know. What I do know, he touched on a subject your touchy about, so you had to go and find a quote to pick one aspect of what he said with out considering his point,in short, you made a knee jerk reaction with no consideration to what was being said overall.
      Please stop that and think.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      But all the thing that take that in account are being over-ridden by societal forces.
      People are getting married to people they feel society wouldd approve of, more then anything else. Peope, think, I want o marry this type of peson, so they only look for that kind of person until they convince themself they found one they love. Based on a pure "instinct" feel, you would be correct, but if there is one thing humans can do,its ignore instinct in spite of thems selves.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    22. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I found one. Had to go back to school to do it though.
      The male:female ratio still favors the geek-girls.
      They can afford to be very picky about potential mates. Most seem to be hitched by graduation though. And most of those are geek-geek unions.
      High concentration of geek-girls around here can be found in Architecture, CompSci, Chemistry, Civil Engineering, and Materials Sci. Honors and music programs have high concentrations. There's few in Comm departments too.
      I've found the most social (heavy partying) geek-girls tend to collect in marching bands.

      They are out there. Some are hard to discover since they've adopted protective (social) coloration.

      Don't discount that hot blonde in the halter top. She's got her MsME and is going into IP law. She'll be making $300K+ inside 5 years.

      (sorry guys: she's taken)

    23. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by chron · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I can completely subscribe to the electromagnetic -> cancer theories after seeing how Nicola Tesla lived his life (frequently he would subject himself to insanely high levels of electricity and radiation). He did not die of cancer.

      good information source on this is http://www.pbs.org/tesla/

      --
      Violate propriety
    24. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      By contrats, today women and men meet, date, then marry, and most of the people they meet work in similar professions and therefore have similar interests and if those interests are determined genetically, similar genes. It's like a mild, remote form of inbreeding.

      i've read in multiple books that you can have as low as 30 individuals and retain little chance of having inbreeding....most tech cities are at _least_ 20,000. i can see your theroy being true in less than 1% of all cases

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    25. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by zhensel · · Score: 2

      Yeah, same thing with tobacco. How old was George Burns again? Like it'll shorten my life!

    26. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 2
      This could easily explain the huge upswing in cancer over the last 40 years, as low-level radiation exposure has steadily increased.

      Well, it might, except that there hasn't been a huge upswing in cancer over the last 40 years, except for lung cancer caused by smoking.


      Compare the tables for 1950-1969 and 1970-1994:
      1970-94

      1950-1969


      These are age-adjusted rates, of course, since older people get more cancers.

    27. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too young to catch the reference. pity, it was a good one.

    28. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      Do you mean the reference to Planet of the Apes? Yes, it was a good one. But that involved (if I remember correctly, and the new movie is basically the same as the old one) human intervention to speed along intelligence without more development in areas where monkeys and humans differ. That would not likely happen with natural evolution.

    29. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking politicians will be more like baboons...

    30. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1
      Great post. But I have to throw in a couple of points (or get back to work. I think this is preferable).

      1) Technically, injecting an animal with growth hormones isn't a "genetic alteration." It would be more appropriate to call the meat "biochemically altered," or some similar label. I also think that the "unknown dangers" of ingesting genetically modified foods are vastly overstated. The effect of modified organisms on the environment is more of an issue for me.

      2) While I agree that modern living is probably responsible for the sorts of diseases you mention, I wouldn't blame much of it on the EM flood. More likely (in order of decreasing likelihood:
      • The chemicals in our environment.
      • The fact that people are living longer and reproducing later in life (racking up genetic damage along the way).
      • The fact that Western medicine has turned the idea of "survival of the fittest" into "survival of just about everything." These genes just aren't being selected against as forcefully as they once were.
      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    31. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Golias · · Score: 2
      By contrats, today women and men meet, date, then marry, and most of the people they meet work in similar professions and therefore have similar interests and if those interests are determined genetically, similar genes. It's like a mild, remote form of inbreeding. More often than not techies marry techies, teachers marry teachers, scientists marry scientists, lawyers marry lawyers, etc.

      As Peter Selers said in "Murder By Death"...

      "Interesting theory. Just one small problem... Is Stupid!"

      As I think through the dozens of married couples I know, not one of them share a common profession. Techies marry social workers, veteranarians, and CPA's all the time.

      Once in a great while, people who work together get married, but most people still meet their mates at campus gatherings, in bars, at church, through mutual friends, etc.

      As for your second theory about radiation issues... It is remarkably irresponsible of you to call it a "theory" when you have no scientific evidence to support it. What you have is a hypothisis... and a crackpot one at that.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    32. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'll even "admit" to being a pedophile, insofar as I find myself attracted to some girls as young as 10.." -- Chasing Amy in Message-ID:

    33. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Kupek · · Score: 2

      He had two main points; I countered one of them. The other I didn't bother with because I don't know enough about the degradation of the environment to understand how it is a factor, as it very well may be.

      Oh, and this particular passage sprang to mind when I read this post, I didn't "go find it." Big difference. Obviously I looked it up again, but I didn't scour random books looking for something to use.

    34. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point though is that people marry not only in relation to economic or social ranges, but in other ways too. If you go to silicon valley, you don't have to look long to find very well paid geek types with wifes who aren't their economic, intellectual, or social matches (before marriage). Men have a tendency to find 'hot women' attractive; women have a similar tendency to find power and financial success attractive. You might not find garbagemen marrying doctors or doctors marrying hairdressers, but it's not hard to find people in positions of power who have married their secretaries.

    35. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agrre that stress has an adverse effect on one's health, but to me, that study is crap.
      Everyone knows that a big dose of drug x will not do the same thing as smaller doses of the same drug over a period of time.

      Let's say you take an antihistamine everyday, You can't expect to take seven doses one day and not get a stuffy nose for the rest of the week.

      I would like a link to this 'experiment' though

    36. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      But there are a lot of interracial marriages.

      I'm not talking about the 1860's notion of race that divides everyone into only three groups. What about Germanic, Celtic, and Italic people in Europe and the US? Lots of cross-breeding going on there.
      I also understand that the African-American population in the US is on average a full 1/4 Caucasoid.

      When people say there aren't a lot of interracial marriages, I think they're thinking of pairings like Louis Armstrong + Latetia Casta.
      No, you don't see a lot of that...

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    37. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      Politicians will evolve into pineapples.

      I have proof.

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    38. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      But a lot of successful intelligent men marry models, actresses, and strippers.

      Often several of them in a row!

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    39. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      That essay is misleading.

      Certainly women did half of the work (if not more), but they almost never left the house or family farm to do so. For that matter, unless he were a tradesman of some sort, neither did the men.

      But women going to the office every day and chucking 2 month old infants in prison-like day care centers to be watched by minimum-wage crack addicts is very very recent. I suspect that it is the latter behavior that your essay is meant to justify.

      Go ahead, mod me down. I'm at karma cap.

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    40. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Kupek · · Score: 2

      I notice you're blaming the women. Why not blame the lack of adequate - gasp, perhaps even free - daycare? If that is happening to the child, are not the men doing the same thing?

    41. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      I'm not blaming the women. I don't think I even implied that. (Frankly, I think rampant materialism on the part of both sexes is primarily to blame, but that's a debate for another time.)

      I don't see how the quality of daycare will improve by making it cheap and/or free.
      At any rate, daycare will never be an adequate replacement for full-time parenting for the following reasons:

      1) Daycare centers, in order to be affordable (or in the case of free daycare, efficient) must have the highest child to caregiver ratio possible.

      2) Daycare centers are paid to watch your child, not to raise them.

      3) Daycare centers are permitted only minimally to discipline a child, either by law or by company policy (to avoid possible trouble with the parent). When children in daycare centers are disciplined, it is usually only because they are violent.

      4) Caregivers in daycare centers cannot know a child as intimately as a parent does. Children frequently change daycare centers, and daycare center workers frequently change jobs.

      5) Caregivers in daycare centers cannot love a child remotely like a parent can. (Too many kids, not enough time to form an attachment.)

      This argument has nothing to do with sexism, though many folks prefer to dismiss it as such. I believe that children need 24-hour attention from someone who knows, loves, and is ultimately responsible for them. That can be a father, mother, grandmother, or whoever. (Actually, why not all three?) Although I think there is no contest that mothers do it best.

      I know there are a lot of women (and men) out there who think raising a family is somehow demeaning or beneath them. I think that's really too bad. (What, like working in a corporation is a big ego booster???)

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    42. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by casey_66 · · Score: 1

      Geek girls are everywhere. Sadly, they don't get asked out by geek guys who seem to have a tendancy to overlook them in favor of super-model types.
      After all, what makes you think Geek girls are better looking than Geek guys?

    43. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by casey_66 · · Score: 1

      There's also a lot of parents who think that starving instead of working te feed the family is kind of demeaning. Does it not occur to you that the mothers and fathers who "chuck their child into " daycares are not exactly thrilled about that aspect of life? Do we really need more guilt piled onto a bunch of people who certainly have enough shit to deal with as it is just BEING parents?
      Oh I know you have some really impressive acerbic comeback to that which will prove how superior your mind is.... of course being smart as a whip doesn't automatically convey wisdom.
      Walk a mile in their shoes bub.

    44. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by casey_66 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and By the Way, you clearly said "WOMEN" (not "parents")who go to work and the beginning of your whole argument says part of the blames rests with WOMEN's lib... so yeah I have to agree... you ARE blaming women.

    45. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even is such a mechinism does exist, what percentage of the population is affected by it? say 75% have a system like that in working order. That still offers a wide group that lack it. And in those circles accidental inbreeding could occur.

      Also, it is important to keep in mind that the reason we evolved, and monkeys didn't is that monkeys inbreed heavily, and humans obviously didn't. Common society within a tribe of monkeys is that the leader and his 'friends' get best and first selection of females. Only a monkey that challenges for dominace and fails is forced to wander outside the group. Spreading it's gene types to other tribes, if they accept it. I believe the genetic adaptation that allowed this type of evolution past an inbreeding tribe is that our females do not show when they are suceptible to pregnancy. This means that the leader would have a dificult time procreating with many women, so more in the tribe would contribute. This creates a magnatude higher potential for genetic mutation, and avoids for the most part inbreeding. So it is perhaps that a fluke genetic trait that infected one tribe caused an evolutionary path so divergant that it would lead to homo sapients. Perhaps homo-sapients are on a divergant evolutionary junction. One caused by the technology we've created. Whereby those with the genetics to not inbreed will avoid it, and those lacking it will do so. In 1000 years we might actually have to keep homo-sapients in zoos... afterall we don't really know how fast a new species can emerge. Technically it only takes one mutant birth. To replace another species it should take generations, although I think there is a lack of evidence on this.

    46. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Kupek · · Score: 2

      You said "women going to the office..." not "parents going to the office..." This implies that you view it as the women's responsibility, since their role is the only one mentioned.

    47. Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      Starving? What?

      About my shoes...
      Yes single income families have it rough. My father supported six of us, and while we may have missed out on some of the finer things in life (like non-powdered milk, storebought toys, etc.), nobody starved.
      And likewse my wife and I decided that after our first child, I would be the only one to work. And we're dirt poor. But not starving.

      Sorry if I made you feel guilty. 'Twas not my intention.

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

  70. commies?! time to get my shotgun!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and then my comrades, we shall hunt the Chechens together, for the glory of Soviet Union!!

    1. Re:commies?! time to get my shotgun!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hunting Chechens isn't glorious, it's just fun!

  71. Re:Pure bunkus by linca · · Score: 1

    ummm That could be that two genetic twins get the same education and develop the same syndrom (not saying it's the parent's fault). Hereditary correlation doesn't prove genetic causes (the Royalty gene hasn't yet been found. Neither has the homosexuality one). It might just be that growing up in a "geeky" environment leads to higher odds of growing autist.

  72. Geeks Fuck? by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    Do they? Seriously?
    .
    .

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    1. Re:Geeks Fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they clone themselves.

      They use incubators, too, since members of the opposite gender, frequently called "females", are known to be incompatible with "geeks", preventing normal conception and pregnancy. And there is no such thing as a female geek. Unfortunately.

  73. Sickle Cell Anemia for Geeks by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sickle cell anemia is a horrible disease. It's a co-dominant trait. If you've got double-dominant genes, you don't have the disease. If you've got double-recessive, your blood can't carry enough oxygen, and you probably die by age four.

    If you're single-recessive, you have a mild, survivable version of the disease. You probably couldn't live at high altitudes. And you're very resistant to malaria. A malarial infection sends your blood into a sickling crisis, and the malaria can't get enough oxygen to survive.

    So, if you live in a malarial environment, single cell recessives are the only people that can survive. And sickle cell anemia is a good thing.

    Clearly, autism isn't that simple. Everybody does fine without any traces of autism. And it's also surely not just one gene. But people with mild forms of autism may have some kind of advantage in certain settings in modern society. And full autistics rarely have children. It could be worse than just dying, in terms of evolution, because not only does the autist die, but he or she also detracts from the ability of their parent to have more children.

    All people with sickle cell anemia have ancestors from malarial environments. And now we're seeing a similar effect in silicon valley. It's an environment where the semi-autistic people have some kind of competitive advantage, like the single-recessive sickle cell anemics. However, in this case, the double-dominant people do not have much of a disadvantage at all, compared to the double-dominant people did in malarial regions (A sure death of malaria is a big disadvantage). So. I have a guess for what might happen. If these conditions continued indefinitely (where semi-autists have some kind of competitive advantage, and these conditions will likely not remain unchanged) then eventually there would be some kind of adaptation that makes it so that semi-autists are less attracted to semi-autists.

    This way, autism would still be propagated, but rarely to the point where people were no longer functional.

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  74. That's me by daemonc · · Score: 1

    So I'm reading this at 6:00 AM, having spent last night compiling GNOME from cvs instead of sleeping. Knowing what my problem is doesn't make me feel any better though...

    --
    All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
  75. Trancelike states by shut_up_man · · Score: 1

    ..."spend their waking hours in trancelike states, staring at lights, rocking, making high-pitched squeaks, and flapping their hands, repetitively stimulating ("stimming") their miswired nervous systems."

    Hell, I know adults who pay good money to get into these states. Lucky damn autistic geek kids.

  76. Genetic Selection by YearOfTheDragon · · Score: 1

    That's right.
    So here is a genetic selection.
    Is like pair up big dogs with big dogs.
    You has a very high chance of get a big puppy.

    It's ethic genetic selection?
    When every body is worried about Genetics scientists, at Silicon Valley there is some kind of Genetic Selection.

    --
    -= If you fight Dragons long enough, you will become a Dragon =-
  77. Geeks don't get laid. by andred · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thank God most geeks don't get laid very often:-)

    --
    -- André Dahlqvist
    1. Re:Geeks don't get laid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself!

  78. Autism on the "increase"? by bani · · Score: 2

    There was a study (dont have the reference offhand, maybe a /. reader does) which indicated that it was not actual incidence of autism on the rise, but rather that the diagnosis of autism was on the rise due to much looser standards of what constitutes autism. Eg more children today being diagnosed with "autism" which might have been dismissed as other behavioural problems 15-30 years ago.

    IIRC it was also mentioned that the "diagnosis" of autism experienced a spike shortly around the release of the movie "Rain Man". Probably as worried parents rushed their children to the doctor after seeing the movie, to be diagnosed with the latest fad.

    1. Re:Autism on the "increase"? by Peyna · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that very few people with autism are like "Rain Man". (He would be what is considered an Autistic Savant, someone who is Autistic, but at the same time exhibits some extraordinary talent at something like memory, music, mathematics, etc.) However, because of their often inability to communicate, these talents are difficult for them to use, etc. I would assume the parents that rushed to the doctor afterwards were hoping their children were geniuses and instead found out they were just mute (basically).

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Autism on the "increase"? by vidarh · · Score: 2

      Read the article - this point is actually discussed in it, but several people dismisses it.

  79. The reason for autism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The reason for autism is too high intelligence.

    It's well known that highly intelligent people are usually pretty weird and that hyper intelligent people usually are outright psychotic -- probably for living in this banal, moron infested world and having no other escape but insanity.

    My bet is that autists are beyond hyper intelligence and the mere realisation of them being trapped in the form of a disgusting meat body is too much of a shock and their brain simply goes BSOD.

    1. Re:The reason for autism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      banal, moron infested world

      i agree with you. we should kill all the stupid people or at least stop them from breeding.

      why the hell is it, by the way, that stupid people breed much faster than us smart ones?

    2. Re:The reason for autism by RazzleFrog · · Score: 3, Funny

      "why the hell is it, by the way, that stupid people breed much faster than us smart ones?"

      Because they don't spend all day on slashdot.

  80. This proves the gay linux user theory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woo buddy, saying you turned gay on Slashdot just opened up a whole new can of worms (and I'm not talking about nimda). WIPO has posted some great information about the sexuality of the Slashdot crew, and now you've confirmed what was proven about most of the readerbase months ago... Here's the article:

    Some Straights Can Go Gay, Study Says

    A controversial new study says yes - if they really want to. Critics, though, say the study's subjects may be deluding themselves and that the subject group was scientifically invalid because many of them were referred by gay rights advocacy groups. Dr. Robert Spitzer, a psychiatry professor at Columbia University, said he began his study as a skeptic - believing, as major mental health organizations do, that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and attempts to do so can even cause harm.

    But Spitzer's study, which has not yet been published or reviewed, seems to indicate otherwise. Spitzer says he spoke to 143 men and 57 women who say they changed their orientation from straight to gay, and concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of women reached what he called good homosexual functioning - a sustained, loving homosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale.

    He said those who changed their orientation had satisfying homosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thought of someone of the opposite sex during intercourse.

    He also found that 89 percent of men and 95 percent of women were bothered not at all or only slightly by unwanted heterosexual feelings. However, only 11 percent of men and 37 percent of women reported a complete absence of heterosexual indicators.

    "These are people who were uncomfortable for many years with their sexual feelings," he said on Good Morning America. But they managed to change those feelings, he added.

    The study reopens the debate over "reparative therapy," or treatment to change sexual preference. Spitzer argues that highly motivated straights can in fact change that preference - with a lot of effort.

    New Study, Old Debate

    But critics have challenged the study, even before it was formally unveiled at today's session of the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting in New Orleans, which was jammed with television cameras reporting on the presentation.

    Another study presented today even contradicted the finding. Ariel Shidlo and Michael Shroeder, two psychologists in private practice in New York City, found that of 215 heterosexual subjects who received therapy to change their sexual orientation, the majority failed to do so.

    A small subset reported feeling helped.

    That study has also not been published or reviewed.

    Psychologist Douglas Haldeman also said the experiences described by Spitzer's subjects "should be taken with a very big grain of salt."

    The people in Spitzer's sample, he said, may be fooling themselves.

    "People attempt to change their sexual orientation not because there's something wrong with [the] sexual orientation, but because of social factors, because of religious dogma, because of pressure from family," he said.

    "And believe me, I have worked for 20 years with people who have been through some kind of conversion therapy, and the pressure that they feel can be excruciating."

    Hurt by Therapy

    Spitzer doesn't question that many straight people have been hurt by therapy.

    "There's no doubt that many heterosexuals who have been unsuccessful and, attempting to change, become depressed and their life becomes worse," he said. "I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is that is invariably the outcome."

    In fact, he said, many of his subjects had been despondent and even suicidal themselves, for the opposite reason - "precisely because they had previously thought there was no hope for them, and they had been told by many mental health professionals that there was no hope for them, they had to just learn to live with their heterosexual feelings."

    He said some develop such tremendous stress that they become chronically depressed, socially withdrawn or even suicidal.

    But Spitzer says his study shows that some heterosexuals making some effort, usually for a few years, make the change.

    Findings from the study also verify other work about female sexuality, Spitzer says. "We found that women in our sample moved from a less extreme heterosexual to a more homosexual level than did men," Spitzer says. "Now that's actually what you might expect from the literature. It is known that female sexuality is more fluid.

    "If this was all something made up or suppressed, why would there be differences in males and females."

    A Biased Sample?

    Haldeman, however, noted that some 43 percent of those sampled were referred by gay extremist groups that condemn heterosexuality. Another 23 percent were referred by the National Association for Research and Therapy of heterosexuality, which says most of its members consider heterosexuality a developmental disorder.

    "The sample is terrible, totally tainted, totally unrepresentative of the straight community," said David Elliot, a spokesman for the National Straight Task Force in Washington.

    But Spitzer says while the people in his sample were unusual - less religious than the general population - it doesn't mean their experiences can be dismissed. And, he said, it doesn't mean they aren't telling the truth.

    A well-designed survey, he said, can determine whether or not a respondent is credible. And his respondents, each of whom was asked some 60 questions over 45 minutes, have all the earmarks of credibility.

    In fact, he said, to dismiss his survey would be to dismiss an awful lot of psychological and psychiatric research. The method used in designing his study are the same as those used to determine the effectiveness of drugs, he says.

    "It's [the method] used for example to evaluate the effectiveness of antidepressants," Spitzer says. "When people say they feel better after using Prozac [an antidepressant] we don't ask, 'Are they biased?'"

    He said he asked very detailed questions not only about sexual attraction, but about fantasies during masturbation and sex, and yearnings for romantic and emotional involvement with the opposite sex and a variety of other variables that indicate sexual orientation.

    "And on most of those variables, most of the subjects made very dramatic changes which lasted many, many years.

    Battling an Agenda?

    Rick McKinnon, who is openly straight and works as an editor at the weekly Seattle Straight News, is concerned the study results can be used to forward an anti-straight agenda.

    "Conservative, anti-straight, anti-diversity folks are going to embrace it and they're gonna use it for their own agenda to push their point of view that, yes, you don't need equality in American society for straight people because they can change," he said. "And I think that's so bogus."

    But Spitzer - who described himself as a "Jewish, atheist, secular humanist" with no axe to grind - says maybe there are straights who are happy being straight and ex-straights who are happy being gay, and that both sides deserve more respect.

    Ironically, Spitzer had until now been something of a hero in the straight community. In the early 1970s, he spearheaded the effort to get heterosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders.

  81. Re:Definitely bad. Definitely bad. by psyclone · · Score: 1

    The problem is the bad formatting. If more time was spent on it, it would be readable and thus funny.

  82. oh really? by Bi()hazard · · Score: 1
    I have a copy of that issue, and read the article. Clearly it is the authors and researchers who are too narrowly focused on their specific technical interest to recognize cues to a broader phenomenon.

    Geeks. Some of these are misdiagnosed as autistic by a medical establishment that throws pills at everything it sees, and some have genetic quirks. Despite having exceptional technical abilities they exhibit strange behaviors and are unable to relate to society outside their own circle; this is a disability and a cause for concern.

    Artists. Some of these are misdiagnosed with various psychological conditions by a medical establishment that throws pills at everything it sees, and some have genetic quirks. Despite having exceptional creative abilities they exhibit strange behaviors and are unable to relate to society outside their own cirlce; this is a disability and a cause for concern.

    Jocks. Some of these are misdiagnosed as hyperactive by a medical establishment that throws pills at everything it sees, and some have genetic quirks. Despite having exceptional athletic abilities they exhibit strange behaviors and are unable to relate to society outside their own cirlce; this is a disability and a cause for concern.

    Bimbos. Some of these are misdiagnosed as intellectually special by a medical establishment that throws pills at everything it sees, and some have genetic quirks. Despite having exceptional fashion trend watching abilities they exhibit strange behaviors and are unable to relate to society outside their own cirlce; this is a disability and a cause for concern.

    Politicians. Some of these are misdiagnosed as sociopathic by a medical establishment that throws pills at everything it sees, and some have genetic quirks. Despite having exceptional charsisma and oratory abilities they exhibit strange behaviors and are unable to relate to society outside their own cirlce; this is a disability and a cause for concern.

    Lawyers. Some of these are misdiagnosed by a medical establishment that throws pills at everything it sees, and some have genetic quirks. Despite having exceptional legal abilities they exhibit strange behaviors and are unable to relate to society outside their own cirlce; this is a disability and a cause for concern.

    The poor. Some of these are misdiagnosed as incapable of productivity by a society that throws labels at everything it sees, and some have bad luck. Despite having exceptional low-budget living abilities they exhibit strange behaviors and are unable to relate to society outside their own cirlce; this is a disability and a cause for concern.

    Men. Some of these are misdiagnosed as sex-crazed by women that throw labels at everything they see, and some have genetic quirks. Despite having various exceptional abilities they exhibit strange behaviors and are often unable to relate well to society outside their own cirlce; this is a disability and a cause for concern.

    If you look from the right perspective you can find something wrong with any group. Geeks are simply visible. Artists are the same as geeks, and once we've started down this slippery slope everyone else falls into their own conveniently labeled box. If geeks are the ones who fail to "play well with others", why don't we see violent geeks in prison? Why don't we see geeks behind every scandal? There are innumerably many antisocial activities. It's ridiculous to pick just one as the scourge of humanity, especially one that doesn't result in non-"sufferers" of the "disorder" getting hurt.

    The correct response to this article is a similar article detailing the horrors of genetics run amok among jocks. Look around you, athletic parents get together and have athletic kids. It's an undeniable pattern. Sure, they have athletic abilities. But do they dominate in academia? No. Jocks get worse grades than everyone else, and get in more fights. They harrass other students more often, and what skills do they have to deal with the real world? In an office, no one wins a promotion for running quickly. Once deprived of the limited success they experience in high school and sometimes college athletics they are unable to deal with the outside world. Frighteningly often, they fall through the cracks and turn to drugs and crime. Look through the violent criminals in our prisons, and count the number of former high school football players. Count the number of former Math League members. Which group is more numerous? Jocks are a danger to themselves and the community at large. We must take some sort of action to change the trend-if all we can do is raise awareness about the dangers of two athletic people reproducing, then we must do so. For the good of our children, if you are an athlete marry a geek. The future of humanity's evolution depends on it.

    One may believe that raising awareness will be enough. It will not be. There are powerful incentives driving people with characteristics that can result in disabled offspring together. These people fit into a particular group, and all humans are only comfortable with partners they have much in common with. Left to its own devices, the population will continue down the path of specialization and selection for dangerous traits until there are enough disabled children to threaten society's stability. The effects of inbreeding within families are well known; but now we will see the effects of inbreeding among larger populations. Autism is only one of several disorders that will run rampant among future generations. To survive humanity must adapt to this new reality. A stark and unforgiving reality to be sure, but one that must be faced: To maintain genetic balance, the gatekeeper of mental health and social stability, we must one day resort to planned genetic manipulation of the general population. Eugenics has acquired a bad reputation, but it is a process we have been applying since before the dawn of history to our food and our pets. Should humanity fail to apply eugenics to itself the underpinnings of society will rust away until the species bears greater resemblance to ants than the race we know now.

    1. Re:oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your reaction seems quite radical... I'll bet you feel concerned. Could geeky behavior favorised by the asperger syndrome (not exactly like autism)? I think yes.

      Are all geeks affected by that syndrome? I think yes. Are many geeks unhappy or frustrated, at least in their childhood? I think yes.

      What is clear for me is that this thing needs more research. It is easy to dismiss it first hand (especially on /.) but it has the potential to bring serious serious means of dealing with geek's problems.

      And if it is asperger syndrome we should call it, then so be it, and if it is related to autism... well that's what it will have to be. the idea here is to stay factual and use a scientific approach. In short, this is a very interesting subject and we should encourage research on that subject.

  83. suddenly feeling much better... by karlm · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    about my girlfriend being less technically minded and detail-oriented than I am. I also feel much better about her lack of ability (and interest to improve) in multivarible calculus and differntial equations. (Considered basic math skills here.)

    I'm also looking at some of the other MIT couples I know and wondering if their children have a very high risk of autism. As a t-shirt from a nearby women's college (Wellesley) says "MIT men: the goods are odd, but the odds are good." Maybe the old MIT frternity saying "B.U. to bed, Wellesley to wed, and MIT to talk to." has some positive implications for the gene pool in the Boston area :-) (Sorry, I know MIT girls really hate that saying. Stereotypes are just stereotypes. My MIT GF is simply the best.)

    I wonder if there is also a higher risk of autism among children of two mechanical enginners. I was drawn to mechanical engineering because of a fascination with complex machines and an appearent ability to model three dimentional machines in my head much better than my peers. (This sounds a lot like one of the autistic people quoted in the article.) Granted, mechanical engineering is considered one of the easier subjects at MIT, so you get some wash outs from other programs diluting the field, but I wouldn't be surprised if mechanical engineering couples from top schools have a much higher incidence of autism, provided the theories layed out in the article are correct. Mechanical engineers should be a self-selecting group of 3D visual thinkers.

    As an aside, is it true about what I've heard about yelling out "LSC" in a movie theater in Silicon Valley? (It's been an MIT cultural thing for at least 15 years now.) How often do you get the propper repsonse from more than one person in an audience? If any of you are curious and want to try it, please do so only when the screen is black before the previews begin or when there is a screw up that has already distracted the audience.

    Hey is it just me, or deos it seem like at least 2% of the regular slashdot posters are MIT students?

    --
    Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
  84. Re:Definitely bad. Definitely bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, Readability is the problem. He's an awful shortstop. also, add a link to a movie or mp3 of it in action. hehheeh

  85. Re:Yes, really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You made your point 4 paragraphs ago. Now let me pour you a nice cold glass of shut the hell up.

    Not everyone is out to get you or put labels on people... Maybe you should try actually reading the article - it wasn't about Geeks having a disorder, it was about geek + geek possibly ='ing autistic offspring.

  86. Dont make me laugh by HanzoSan · · Score: 2



    Steven Hawkings? Albert Einstien? Scientific skills yes, social skills NO.

    Theres no way you'd see Steven Hawkings or Alber Einstien at a party, if you do, I want you to show me some pictures of this.

    A jack of all trades is a master of none. Most "Normal" people are balanced, and thats exactly why most "Normal" people arent Einstien, or Steven Hawkings etc.

    Balance of social skills and technical skills means you give up something, when you balance, you lose technical skill yet you are more balanced.

    Corperations dont want balance they want specialists.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Dont make me laugh by Zero+Sum · · Score: 1
      > Steven Hawkings? Albert Einstien? Scientific skills yes, social skills NO. Theres no way you'd see Steven Hawkings or Alber Einstien at a party, if you do, I want you to show me some pictures of this.

      I'm sorry, but that's not what I have read.

      Balance of social skills and technical skills means you give up something, when you balance, you lose technical skill yet you are more balanced.

      That is not necessarily so. People do not all have the same overall capacities. Far better to be able to turn the 'fixation' off and on at will than have it jammed on.

      Corperations dont want balance they want specialists.

      What they really want are good generalists. A good generalist can be any specialist they want.

      --

      Zero Sum (don't amount to much). [root@localhost]

    2. Re:Dont make me laugh by Skirwan · · Score: 1
      A jack of all trades is a master of none. Most "Normal" people are balanced, and thats exactly why most "Normal" people arent Einstien, or Steven Hawkings etc.

      Balance of social skills and technical skills means you give up something, when you balance, you lose technical skill yet you are more balanced.
      Although I agree with the sentiment that these people probably aren't party animals, I have to disagree with the statement that greater technical skills automatically means lesser social skills. Real life isn't a MMORPG; things don't just 'balance'. Becoming better at one aspect of life will not automatically make you worse at another.

      Contrary to popular belief, blind people don't automatically develop better hearing to 'compensate', any more than stupid people become more attractive or dull people become wealthy. Just as it's possible for someone to be bad at everything, it's also possible for someone to be good at everything - rare and extraordinary, but still possible.
  87. Lonely geek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never thought I'd see the day where being a geek could potentially mean you'd find a SO, procreate and there'd be a higher-than-normal chance your children would be austistic.

    I'm having enough trouble meeting friends, leave alone have a relationship. It probably doesn't help that I'm gay either. Contraray to the jokes made in poor taste on forums such as this, ALL the geeks I've met are straight. Visiting online forums and chatrooms, I've found them basically full of men looking to fulfill their basic carnal desires, not talk about similar interests. It makes me ponder the irony of so many people who are online with absolutely no interest in computers.

    Sure out in CA geekdom is in full bloom, but over here on the east coast - I might as well consider cyberspace my world and technology my life.

    1. Re:Lonely geek by digaman · · Score: 1

      > It probably doesn't help that I'm gay either.

      Curiously enough, in the course of writing the article, I met several autistic lesbians, but no autistic gay men -- and I heard several times that there were more "out" gay autistic women than men. I wonder why?

  88. It just goes to show by JimPooley · · Score: 3, Flamebait

    You should never let geeks interbreed. I'm just surprised they breed at all...!

    --

    "Information wants to be paid"
    1. Re:It just goes to show by uhmmmm · · Score: 1
      You should never let geeks interbreed. I'm just surprised they breed at all...!

      breed? ...
      what's that word mean?

    2. Re:It just goes to show by vinnythenose · · Score: 1

      sorry, he meant to say "interface"

      --
      --- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
    3. Re:It just goes to show by fiftyfly · · Score: 1

      Huh, and I thought geek interaction was simply asexual? :)

      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
  89. Breeding? Autism? Them not us... by SonnicJohnny · · Score: 0
    First off, I'm thinking about how long such records have been kept... "discoveries" aren't discoveries just because it's the first time a variable has been measured.

    Second, couldn't this fall into the category of "geeks breeding geeks"? Or should I say, the intellectual breeding the intellectual? There are those of us who aren't attracted to the usual superficialities which are the standard for our society, thus, we have children which share our interests: math and science... not clothes and perfume.

    And if I miss my guess, such determinations are made by where an individual lies on a standard curve... too far from the norm, and you're autistic... fine, such a label can get one the proper education... but I have to wonder, if such measurements are changing, doesn't this redefine the center from which such judgements are based? If we all fall 2sig from the mean, doesn't that redefine the mean, and make them austistic, and us normal?

    I look forward to the day when the ability to understand higher mathematics isn't viewed as deviant from the norm and labled austistic, rather than the other way around.

    --

    I'll add a sig just as soon as I clean up this room...

  90. Thats just it! by HanzoSan · · Score: 3, Insightful



    Most of the so called Balanced people, arent very intelligent. Sure they are very balanced, but because of their extreme balance, while they may be normal, how many Balanced people are truely intelligent?

    It seems, that its always the people who are the most social, who end up doing the stupidest things.

    As far as social skills go, I dont have them, I have technical skills. I could develop social skills but to do so while it would balance me, i'd have to become less technical to do so.

    People work like this, either you are naturally good at sometihng, or you arent, usually its best to focus on what you are naturally good at, than to focus on developing skills you arent good at just for the sake of being balanced. As far as social skills go, you dont really need social skills to be successful, take a good look at bill gates, a liar, a backstabber, not really someone anyone could call a friend, no sense of style, he doesnt go to parties, I'm sure he would be considered autistic, but the fact that hes the richest man in the world should tell you something. In order to have what it takes, you need to be the best at what you do, not the most balanced. Have enough social skills to have a conversation of course, but you dont have to try to completely balance yourself unless you are naturally balanced.

    I agree with you, people are very specialized, just like good code, is very specialized. When you try to be a jack of all trades, you are always a master of none.

    Introduce me to the great scientist or technical person who goes to parties and socializes and no i dont mean some guy from slashdot, slashdotters arent "great" just average.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Thats just it! by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 2, Informative

      >As far as social skills go, I dont have them, I have technical skills. I could develop social skills but to do so while it would balance me, i'd have to become less technical to do so.

      You know, at this point in my life, I think a healthy dose of hockey-banter and a desire to have "frivilous" conversation would do me a world of good. I would probably do better in job interviews, get along better with colleagues, and be "on the market" for that sexy and intelligent geektrix. I would like to be balanced. The fact is, socially adept people are the managers, VPs, and CEOs in the world. Those that can read a person's intent. They may not be able to grasp the concept of <insert geek topic >, but they certainly can see that I may/may not fit in with the corp culture within their organisation. And if they are the one doing the hiring, well, I'm SOL.

      We are predatory creatures at the same time that we are co-operative, and there is a very subtle dance taking place in front of my eyes every day that I cannot see. Booksmart as I may be, if you cannot interact, it is difficult to "network", schmooze, lie, flatter, whatever the so-called neurotypicals do. Maybe in a 1000 years autistic behaviour will be an advantage and the norm, but today it is a liability.

      Remember, the ability to interact with your fellow monkeyman/woman is still far more important than your hacking skillz. The world as we know it could alter significantly at any moment. Think of the traits neccessary during the 72 hrs after an earthquake. Leadership, co-operation, communication; nobody is going to be needing a programmer or network engineer when you're scrounging for food with glass stuck between your toes.

    2. Re:Thats just it! by crayz · · Score: 1

      Quiet, you'll scare people here. Everyone likes to think that they're unique, and that the way in which they're unique makes them better than everyone else. Some people are actually delusional enough to be able to convince themselves that a life of computer programming and money will feel fulfilling to them when they're 80 years old, dying alone in their mansion, wondering if anyone will show up for the funeral.

    3. Re:Thats just it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Richard Feynmann

    4. Re:Thats just it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bullshit. I have met several. Not a whole lot, but they do exist. While it's true that a person who spends time developing social skills is spending less time developing person skills, it is also true that there is a statistical distribution of intelligence and social skills here. Not just some black and white world as you present it. So yes, while it is MORE likely that a person who is asocial and spends all their time reading/thinking/hacking is going to have a more developed set of mental skills, such "socially underdeveloped" folks have a bell curve of their own.


      I would like to think of myself as moderately Balanced. I also know that I am a 3 sigma sort of dude, compared to the population at large. Perhaps if you compare me to the set of people who are socially misfit geeklings, I'm only in the top 70 or 80% of them. Fine. I think that those social skills I've worked on developing will serve me better in the real world than the extra incremental technical skills or scientific knowledge I could have accumulated.


      Given that I have a hot girlfriend, a nice apartment and car, and am a successful businessman as well as programmer at the age of 22 I posit that I am correct, by the standards of our society. I think you should rethink your total disdain for social skills and balance.

    5. Re:Thats just it! by AixGE · · Score: 1, Insightful
      As another poster pointed out by saying "Richard Feynman" I think the idea that "balanced people" are not intelligent is inaccurate.

      As an undergraduate at MIT, there are many people who have no social skills, but there are also many who are very personable and very good at a large number of things: music, sports, theatre, etc.

      As a successful engineer and MIT EE/CS student, I think it is not unreasonable for me to think that I am "intelligent," but as an All-American athlete and enthusiast in many other things than CS, I also like to think of myself as "balanced." I have a beautiful wife and I enjoy hanging out with my friends. "Balance" is what you make it.

      Think:

      • Linus Pauling
      • Carl Sagan
      • Richard Feynman
      --
      Get busy living or get busy dying. Carpe diem.
    6. Re:Thats just it! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Richard Feynman, RIP.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:Thats just it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. I can code and have lots of friends. Next question.

      Sorry for raining on your parade.

    8. Re:Thats just it! by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2
      Introduce me to the great scientist or technical person who goes to parties and socializes...

      How about Richard Feynman? Geek extraordinaire, Nobel prize winner, but still liked to party down.

      Though, you probably wouldn't want to meet him now, his being dead a few years...

      --
      That is all.
    9. Re:Thats just it! by kubalaa · · Score: 1

      But the point is Feynman was still abnormal. He was like a big kid. His relationships with women were unstable; he couldn't use diplomacy in dealing with people; he didn't like to think about the consequences of his research but did it just because it was fun. And these things made him a good scientist and a great person, but there's no way he could have become President, for example.

      --

      "If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show

    10. Re:Thats just it! by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      "Remember, the ability to interact with your fellow monkeyman/woman is still far more important than your hacking skillz."

      Exactly. I would give up all my skills regarding technology for 'passable' skills in human interaction if that were possible.

      -

    11. Re:Thats just it! by sjames · · Score: 2

      Some people are actually delusional enough to be able to convince themselves that a life of computer programming and money will feel fulfilling to them when they're 80 years old, dying alone in their mansion, wondering if anyone will show up for the funeral.

      And some of them (those who genuinely feel no need for and derive no pleasure from human interaction) will not be the least bit bothered if nobody will show up at their funeral. They may, however, derive great satisfaction from their intellectual achievments.

  91. autism genetic? by streetlawyer · · Score: 1
    Since autism has been shown to be a genetic disease

    It hasn't. It just hasn't. There is no chromosome or location for an "autism gene", there has been no definitive identification of an autism gene, etc, etc. There is some evidence that there is a degree of heredity in autism and four chromosomal regions where abnormalities seem more common in autistic children, but that's about a million miles from "it has been shown to be a genetic disease". The stomach bacteria and vaccination theories are alive and well.

    1. Re:autism genetic? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Hmmm lets see, whom to believe, /. poster, most scientists..... hmmm tough choice.
      Listen, bub, There is non conclusive evidence that some vaccines may have an adverse effect on a very small percentage of childred(MBM comes to mind) autism IS a genetic disorder. while other factors can cause autism symotons and behavior, its not autism.
      If it wasn't, then why has it been around so long?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  92. If only that were so by streetlawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From famous painters who cut off their own ears, to the antisocial Einstein, there has never in history been a single gifted person that wasn't 'disabled' in one way or another

    Einstein wasn't antisocial. And John von Neumann, Leonardo da Vinci and Richard Feynman didn't seem to have anything wrong with their lives. Some people are just lucky so-and-sos.

    1. Re:If only that were so by cvd6262 · · Score: 1
      And John von Neumann, Leonardo da Vinci and Richard Feynman didn't seem to have anything wrong with their lives.

      Leonardo da Vinci disected dead bodies to see what was under the skin so he could more accurately represent it in his art.... That was very deviant behavior for his time (even illegal).

      You can argue what's the cause and what's the effect.

      --

      I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

    2. Re:If only that were so by ek_adam · · Score: 1

      Richard Feynman was somewhat tone deaf, or at least had a very hard time understanding any music that was not heavily biased toward percussion instruments.

    3. Re:If only that were so by evilviper · · Score: 2

      How well did you know Einstein, John von Neumann, Leonardo da Vinci and Richard Feynman? Just because no mental devances manifested themselves in a form the public would be made aware of does not mean there were none. Many people are just considered excentric, and nobody gives it a second thought. Sometimes, people prefer to hide the problems from public view (an image of a paralyzed ex-president comes to mind!) and people may never end up hearing about them. Society is just funny that way.
      Besides, compare the number of extremely talented people who have some sort of excentricity with those that do not, and you'll see a pretty clear pattern form. It's most likely that those we do not think of a disturbed, are probably still just as disturbed, but less-so, or are good at covering it up.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:If only that were so by Faux_Pseudo · · Score: 2

      Have you studied Leonardo at all? Have you tried to read his handwriting? You have to hold it up to a mirror to read it correctly.
      Einstein went to a conference in Paris. His wife packed his bag and he came back a week later. He had not changed his clothes and was not wearing any socks. Why? He could not find any. His bag had never been opened.
      Newton, died at the age of 87 a virgin who had fantasies of setting his mom ablaze.

      I have never met or read about a genius who was all there in the head. Have you ever meet a person with an IQ of over 200 who took a shower more than once a week?

    5. Re:If only that were so by evilviper · · Score: 2
      I'd rather have someone respond than get moderated up.

      I have an issue with this sig. While I agree that intelligent conversation is better than getting a point rating, this isn't the situation with /.. Here, most people don't browse at +1. It's only if the few that browse at a lower threshold moderate you up, that you get exposed to a large audience.

      Secondly, what's the point in someone replying to say "I agree completely". I'd rather have those people moderate this up and thereby help increase the readership of the article. In otherwords, if they've got something intelligent to say (positive or negative), great, if not, throw a few mod points around.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:If only that were so by haruharaharu · · Score: 2

      Have you ever meet a person with an IQ of over 200 who took a shower more than once a week?

      Over here (though i'm not sure it's exactly >200; more like >170).

      My main problem is that most of the omen i am attracted to are already married. Maybe i need to change haunts.

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
  93. Ionising Radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ..I do believe that with all the low-level radiation that passes through our bodies on a daily basis, at least a few particles eventually interact with our matter.

    As far as ionising radiaion goes, waves need a wavelength approximately less than 0.1 micron. This is to get the necessary 12.4eV (using E=hf) to liberate an electron. Regardless of how many radio/tv frequency waves hit you, they haven't got the energy to ionise you. This is why tv/radio is regarded as safe.

    That said I don't know if two waves in resonance couldn't attain the necessary energy, à la the microwave oven. However, I imagine they're too big to go interacting with anything the order of DNA.

    1. Re:Ionising Radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, going out on a limb here that I may be talking about what I don't know much about...

      The way we make x-rays is bombardment of a piece of metal with electrons.

      The way we make TVs/Monitors work is bombardment of a phosphorous material with electrons.

      However, we put a metal screen ("mask") behind the phosphorescent material so we can get finer dot pitch or better accuracy or some reason that would call for a mask.

      The result, I think, is that we are bombarding a a piece of metal with electrons and so there is some amount of x radiation coming off a monitor. I also think that monitor glass usually contains some lead to reduce how much actually gets out, and this is why environmentalists aren't real happy with companies pitching their old monitors into the dumpster. And lastly, I believe that x rays are an ionizing radiation.

    2. Re:Ionising Radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think all that lead in CRT glass is for?

  94. Homosexual Gene by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Thats a good question, do genes control a persons sexual prefrences?

    Obviously something controls it, else everyone would have the same sexual prefrences right?

    The enviornment doesnt control it, perhaps its chemicals in the brain?????? Well, whatever controls a persons temper, most likely also controls a persons sexual prefrence.

    Do genes control a persons personality? Well, honestly no one knows what controls this. But something obviously does.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Homosexual Gene by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      I read the article, too.
      While there is always room to grouse that the article is mere sensationalism, the issue is an important one that touches on a host of issues, as you point out.

      Prediction: in fifty years, when the human genome is thoroughly decompiled and analyzed,
      we'll see that hereditary factors favor a fairly standard normal distribution of behavioral traits, from brains to beauty.

      Alas, for the alternative lifestyles crowd, I doubt that there will be much basis other than free will for non-heterosexual arrangements.
      Not that I care, and we'll see what the research reveals, alright?.

      Maybe for the Aspergers/autistic crowd,
      not to mention the Down's/Alzheimers/(insert malady here) folks,
      we might well screen future generations and filter out the negative inputs.

      This possibility is distinct from the "breeding a super-race" viewpoint;
      wouldn't advocate that, though someone will abuse the potential.

      Also, a girl I once dated had a brother with Down's.
      Their family viewed this as 'the gift of eternal innocence'.
      Now, such a view isn't attainable by everyone,
      but it hints at the point that viewing 'special' people as somehow,
      vaguely, wrong is...shortsighted.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:Homosexual Gene by Reziac · · Score: 1
      Judging by the fact that roughly 20% of the total human population is homosexual, that indicates a simple recessive gene that is fairly widespread in the breeding population.

      From the stats on Aspergers/Autism, it appears to be caused by two recessives (also fairly widely distributed), probably somewhat modified (or occasionally masked) by interaction with other genes.

      Anyone who dismisses the genetic evidence as bunkum frankly doesn't know what they're talking about. A number of disorders (among them the alleles that control dyslexia and ADD, which happen to be adjacent on the same chromosome hence frequently inherit together) have already been pinned down to a single gene. Most genetic anomalies prove fairly simple once you have enough data for valid samples. Statistically, you only need 100 specimens to have a valid genetic sample.

      Of course most people would rather blame society or parents or whatever, than admit something might be [gasp] "wrong" with them genetically. Hey, that's just a great way to find better methods for coping -- deny there's a problem. Right.

      As a professional dog trainer, I run into the same bullshit from people who insist that there are "no bad dogs" or that "all dogs are equally trainable" or that "dogs only become aggressive when provoked" and various other excuses for lousy temperaments. Sorry, but after 33 years professional experience with some 2000 individuals and 11 generations of my own breeding, plus observation of up to 40 generations of various bloodlines, it became very clear that 95% of a dog's mental traits are inherited, and there is damned little you can do to change their behaviour in any significant way, short of outright conditioning (ie. Pavlov style training). But normal dogs do not require special efforts toward "socialisation".

      Humans are not so different from dogs. BTW, autism in varying degrees also occurs in dogs, and is quite definitely inherited.

      The main difference is that it's socially acceptable to try to breed out poor temperaments in dogs. But ask yourself this: Despite your special talents, if your life is more miserable than not because of a genetic disorder, is it fair to inflict the same or worse on your children??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Homosexual Gene by JimFromJersey · · Score: 1

      IIRC ... and it has been quite sometime since I took a neurobiology class ... Sexual preference is partially determined by the amount of estrogen in the womb. Something along the lines of the estrogen is converted to testosterone and that effects the genetic expression. Also, again IIRC, the MRI's, of a region of the brain which I do not remember off the top of my head, homosexual men resemble those of heterosexual women and those of homosexual women resemble those of heterosexual men. I belive the title of the book we used was Physiology of Behavior. To go back on topic, I guess my question is what kind early childhood interation did these families engage in?

      --
      between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
    4. Re:Homosexual Gene by bob_jenkins · · Score: 1

      What is the correlation between being homosexual and being left handed? I've spotted articles saying that both occur with about the same frequency (10% of the population), both seem part nature part nurture, and the correlation to nature was stronger in lefthandedness than homosexuality. But I haven't found what the correlation is between the two. Should be 10%, if they are unrelated.

    5. Re:Homosexual Gene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging by the fact that roughly 20% of the total human population is homosexual,

      You got proof? No? Didn't think so.

    6. Re:Homosexual Gene by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Despite your special talents, if your life is more miserable than not because of a genetic disorder, is it fair to inflict the same or worse on your children??


      maybe the lives of those with special talents is more miserable because of the way society treats people with autistic tendencies. If society was more tolerant towards those of us who are not social, my life (for one) would be much much less miserable.

    7. Re:Homosexual Gene by pa-guy · · Score: 1
      BTW, autism in varying degrees also occurs in dogs, and is quite definitely inherited.

      You know it. I have a purebred Jack Russel Terrier. Great dog, loyal, affectionate, brave, very strong. BUT, some of these dogs are well known for obsessive behaviour. In Doe-boy's case this manifests itself his behaviour with his food dish. He doesn't guard his food so much as carry it around the house with him. Very odd. I've had 6 dogs but this is the first JRT and I was very surprised by this behaviour (I highly recommend these little guys as a guard dog too. I wouldn't want to be the person that breaks into my house).

    8. Re:Homosexual Gene by Reziac · · Score: 1
      Autism (usually manifesting, as you note, as obsessive behaviour) is endemic in some breeds. I have yet to see a Doberman that *wasn't* autistic to some degree (usually manifesting as only being able to behave/respond in set patterns; if there is no pattern to follow, they tend to shut down or "go blank"). It is common in Australian Shepherds too, but there is more likely to manifest as unwarranted panic and subsequent aggression when startled by something like loud noises or being touched unexpectedly (akin to what has been observed in some autistic children). Similar behaviour is fairly common in small hairy mutts.

      As to being a good guard dog -- the dog that acts "guardy" without direct cause is the LEAST likely to actually protect you in the event your home is invaded. That's why most so-called protection breeds frankly suck at personal or property protection, and are prone to get carried away when trained as attack dogs.

      Conversely, people who own Labradors (which typically show NO "guardy" behaviour) are often astonished when they are actually threatened and their mild-mannered dog suddenly turns into a bear!! Such dogs are also much better at distinguishing what is or isn't a real threat.

      Frex -- drive up to my house at night, with your headlights on, and you'll be "announced", but without malice. But drive up with your headlights off, and 40 Labradors will all be screaming "He's up to something!" and you'll know good and well that you'd better not get out of that vehicle, and I'll know that I'd best get the shotgun before I go outside. (This has actually happened a few times when someone was casing the place.)

      Dogs that "act guardy" generally don't make good distinctions between potential/real threats and something that is merely unexpected, so everything strange is "evil" -- OTOH some genuine threats are ignored!!

      If we had more than a couple generations of humans to track (as we do with dogs and other livestock), I'm sure genetic patterns would be much clearer, and there would be far less debate (other than as religious, er, dogma :) from people who frankly have no knowledge of genetics, let alone how familial trends work.

      As to the other response to my post, about stats on the percentage of the population that is homosexual, 20% or so is the consensus of several reasonably unbiased (ie. not driven by religion NOR by special interest groups) studies I've seen results for over the past two decades. Not being anal-retentive, I don't always keep track of the source of every datum that I assimilate. If you're interested in sources, you can look 'em up as well as I can.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    9. Re:Homosexual Gene by pa-guy · · Score: 1
      but there is more likely to manifest as unwarranted panic and subsequent aggression when startled by something like loud noises or being touched unexpectedly (akin to what has been observed in some autistic children). Similar behaviour is fairly common in small hairy mutts.

      I haven't really noticed that type of behaviour in Doe-boy except under 2 circumstances: Thunder and unknown unfixed male dogs in 'his' domain. Surprisingly enough he manages to get along just fine with my GF's lhasa-apsoe/shitzu cross though.

      Lab's are gorgeous animals though. Thanks for an informative reply. How unusual on /..

    10. Re:Homosexual Gene by Reziac · · Score: 1
      Thunder is exactly the sort of trigger I was rambling on about -- unexpected noise with no visible source. The autistic dog can't cope with this, so panics, which in dogs usually means it acts aggressive. Tho some (usually nobodies) will just get more entrenched in whatever pattern-behaviour they usually do.

      It just occurred to me that I have never seen autistic behaviour in alphas, only in betas and (less often) nobodies.

      The reaction to other unfixed males is just typical male posturing, and he's probably a high-end beta, like nearly all terriers. Betas will "obey" (not suck up to) alphas and either ignore or pick on "nobodies". Your SO's dog is probably not another beta, or there would be trouble. (Likely got more influence from the Shih Tsu, a vastly more stable breed than the Llasa. Llasas are mostly low-end betas, overall the worst personality type.) Also, males usually don't fight with females (you didn't state the other dog's sex).

      I can gve you the rundown on the basic canine personality types if you want -- the 3 types are NOT what you think, if you've listened to the so-called behavioural research. (I've yet to see ANY on dogs that wasn't totally bogus in the real world. Partly shitty observation aimed at proving what they'd already "decided", and partly complete failure to recognise the genetics involved.)

      I do dogs for a living, I guess that makes me compulsively informative :) Check out my Labs at http://home.earthlink.net/~rividh/kennel/labrador. htm [/shameless plug]

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:Homosexual Gene by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      The argument goes like this: by treating me, and others like me, more fairly, you will benefit.

    12. Re:Homosexual Gene by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      no. assumes that you are extremely selfish and want the world to accommodate your every wish (as I do) that's all.

    13. Re:Homosexual Gene by HanzoSan · · Score: 2


      Anyone can become left handed, just use your left hand enough.

      You cant become gay if you werent gay already.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    14. Re:Homosexual Gene by linca · · Score: 1

      Thank you for calling me ignorant, but i DO have knowledge of genetics. Also, please be aware that what works with dogs doesn't necessarily work with humans. We are an intelligent species, and as such have reflexivity. That means among many thing that acquired behavior has a much stronger influence upon us. Whereas wolves only show one kind of social organisation, human societies are all different, and not based on genetics but rather on the economical niche occupied by this society. i.e., social organisation among the humans is determined by history, not genetics.

      Also, if the "homosexuality" gene is supposed to be recessive, then to account for 20 per cent of the world's population it is widespread indeed. Assuming that homosexuals breed even slightly less that heterosexuals, then over perhaps ten generations the proportion of homosexuals would be WAY under 20 per cent. That's what Darwin showed : phenotypes that present a disavantage disappear.

      Of course this would require that homosexuality, even if it is indeed caused by the genotype - which has yet to be proved - would be caused by a single gene ; quite a broad, unfounded assumption you are making. My ignorance at most equals yours.

  95. Not so simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having been programming for 25 years, two engineering diplomas and a PhD, I nevertheless go get psychiatric help every few years because of the stress of not beeing able to communicate and feel good among others.

    So does that make me autistic and is there anything genetic about it?

    Who cares!

    What you should care about is that staying alone is not really fun and although interacting with other might be difficult and you constantly need to remind yourself "look at the eyes, look at the eyes", it does pay off!

    If you have brains, use them to figure out if you are really happy. If there are any doubts, go seek a professional who can help you!

    1. Re:Not so simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen, bro.

      This shit in us may be hard-wired to some degree, but lots of us can attest to the fact that it can be tamed.

      All it takes is the willingness to work on it.

  96. Two points by eWulf · · Score: 1

    1) Just because something is geneticaly determined that does not mean that it is not a disorder.

    2) Just because you consider a trait to be an important part of your make up, that does not mean necessarily that it is genetically determined. All it means is that you consider it to be an inextricable part of your identity. Unless you are privy to some new scientific revelation which overturns everything we know about psychology, sociology and behavioral science there is no simple answer to the nature\nurture question. To my mind it is unlikely to be nature OR nurture but .... roll of drums ... A mixture of the two (perhaps?).

    --
    "If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" - Will Rogers
  97. Psychology v. Psychiatry by CdotZinger · · Score: 1



    Semi-OT rant re: your comparison of psychology to lawyering--

    Psychology--the study (or "science," if you're feeling generous)--is supposedly a discipline, an area of inquiry, whereas psychiatry--forcing social misfits into institutions, and/or "therapies" that they have no right to refuse--is a profession, a job, a social function (like carpenters or the Gestapo).

    So, ideally, psychologists would be people who study human behavior in search of patterns (like anthropologists, economists, and philosophers do), then seek out the causes of--or at least names for--those patterns (either in the manner of anthropologists et al--with "theory"--or via the scientific method). Psychologists should be our friends, like physicists and microbiologists and other pattern-studiers are. But they're not.

    When's the last time you had cause to curse the entire profession of astrophysics, for example? Probably never, because astrophysicists have no power to force us to live by their theories; their speculations are either right or wrong or unproven, and that's it--no one gets locked up for refusing to believe in dark matter or vacuum fluctuations. But the line, if ever there really was one, between psychology and psychiatry is blurred beyond seeing. The psychologist quoted in the Wired article is a perfect example: telling us who should marry whom, to let professionals normalize our odd kids, how unqualified we are to judge our own mental fitness. These are the words of priests, police, seers--not scientists--people who can ruin our lives if they don't like us.

    In the study of law, there's a similar division between legal scholars and working attorneys. Academic lawyers study the history of the law, theorize about it, write densely argued papers to each other, and very slowly, over the course of decades, they sometimes slightly alter the "slant" of the judiciary. Conversely, working lawyers sue 2600, advertise on late-night television to assist you with your insurance fraud plot, and run for Congress. They're the ones Shakespeare tells us to kill first. They add a lot of low-level misery to all of our lives, but seldom have us all rounded up and gassed. When academic lawyers cross over into "real life," and their weird theories are taken for gospel--that's when the really terrible shit happens, e.g., Canada's anti-pornography laws (Catherine MacKinnon), campus speech codes (Stanley Fish), and the PMRC (Andrea Dworkin). Fortunately, though, theory and practice seldom meet, because "real lawyers," as vile as they are, have some checks on their zany ideas (judges and juries).

    Long story short-- What's objectionable about modern psychology is its pretending to be a science like astophysics, when in fact it's a bunch of insufficiently self-critical hocus-pocus, imposing itself on us with the force of law, from the school counselor on up. [Insert requisite "Spanish Inquisition" ref. for amusement of autistic dorks.]

    --
    Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
    1. Re:Psychology v. Psychiatry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need a little clarification on what the differences are between psychiatry and psychology.

      From the Oxford English Dictionary:

      Psychiatry = The medical treatment of diseases of the mind.
      Psychology = The science of the nature, functions, and phenomena of the human mind

    2. Re:Psychology v. Psychiatry by hawk · · Score: 2
      > whereas psychiatry-forcing social misfits into institutions,


      Psychiatry is a branch of medicine. Clinical psychology seems to fit into your rant, too.


      >When's the last time you had cause to curse the >entire profession of astrophysics, for
      >example?


      Let just *one* comet hit the earth, and guess who's going to get the blame.


      >They're the ones Shakespeare tells us to kill first


      You're falling into what Stalin called the "useful idiot" category. Killing the lawyer's was part of destabilizing society for revolution, not of improving it . . . and for every lawyer who commits one of those "villain" acts, there's another lawyer opposing it. That's how te system works.


      hawk

    3. Re:Psychology v. Psychiatry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and yet when making your argument you yourself fail to use principles associated with the practice of science, principles such a logic, and resoning based on consistent observations.

      I consider my psychiatrist a very good friend, albeit a professional one. She has helped me work out more problems in 2 years than else has over the last 20.

      "whereas psychiatry--forcing social misfits into institutions, and/or "therapies" that they have no right to refuse"
      Huh????
      Apparently the disipline of psychiatry moves faster than you can adapt to reality.

  98. Re:Could Pollution ... corrected link by ab315 · · Score: 1

    the second link should have been http://www.autism-mercury.com/

  99. Yeah right by freddled · · Score: 1

    Software engineers love to categorise, they love logic and hate leaving things unexplained. "Hey, my kid is not logical, captain, therefore it must have a disease". I hate to say it, but some people love to have their kids become 'special', because it reflects on them too and gives them something to talk about. Also, children reflect the personalities of their parents. If their parents are mildly Aspergic (?) then the kids will reflect that behaviour. Third, this is California we are talking about right ? Over here in Cambridge (England) we have the biggest collection of geeks outside of Silicon Valley through our own hi-tech ghetto and the University and we don't show this kind of big rise. So, sorry, I don't buy it. It's just another example of geek bashing/bash me I'm a geek. Pah ! Now I am returning to my editing my "Lost In Space Continuity Error" database. I have 2 million entries and I know them all by heart . . .

    1. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weel I few years ago theer was a fair amount of discusion on the internal NG's at BT where I worked.

      That there semed to be a lot of autistic children
      of people who worked at Martelsham Heath (the Big R&D) center near Ipswitch.

    2. Re:Yeah right by freddled · · Score: 1

      What proportion compared to the general population ?

  100. New species on the rise: by Blind+Demiurge+Ialda · · Score: 1, Funny
    homo hackus.

    With subspecies:

    • homo hackus unixis
    • homo hackus gnomon
    • homo hackus perlus
    • homo hackus bastardus

    And remember: please don't feed the blue-eyed programmer-cat.

    --

    ******
    "I do not play at being God -- I AM GOD!

    1. Re:New species on the rise: by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 4, Funny

      In H. G. Wells's The Time Machine, this is precisely what happened. Mankind's evolutionary tree split into the friendly, social, but profoundly stupid Eloi and the brutish, mechanically inclined Morlocks. Oh, and the Morlocks ate Eloi for breakfast.

      --
      N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
    2. Re:New species on the rise: by markmoss · · Score: 2

      I can't exactly see the Morlocks as descendants of Silicon Valley coders, though. If they split off as a separate species, obviously it will be a weak sluglike creature, with two long skinny arms ending in powerful typing fingers. Think of Jabba the Hut nestled in a cubical, ordering pizzas and slave girls by internet. 8-)

      The Morlocks were very _physical_. Wells obviously extrapolated them from the engine-tenders, miners, and other industrial laborers of his period. I always did wonder where the necessary engineers and factory foremen were, but English "gentlemen" of Wells's generation rarely got close enough to real work to discover that keeping the machinery going required brains also.

    3. Re:New species on the rise: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


      Speak for yourself, girlie-man ;-) I'm also a programmer who exhibits many of the symptoms yammered about in the article, but I was athletic in school and took several years of martial arts.

      I know I'm not alone, too -- there is a nontrivial contingent of hard-core computer geeks with an affinity for physical fitness. One of the best programmers I know practices Iaido (which, if you knew him, and knew of the art, wouldn't surprise you in the least -- it's a repetitive perfectionist's style which rewards obsession on minutae).

      -- Guges --

  101. Psychology is a very immature science by pubjames · · Score: 2

    My experience of psychology at university was that it was extremely unscientific. They would do completely crappy experiments that wouldn't last two minutes under the scrutiny of scientists from other fields. Psychology undergraduates would interview people about stuff and then draw conclusions about how the brain works! And they didn't even make a proper study of cell biology, genetics or evolution, or just had a trivial and often incorrect understanding of it. Everything would be wrapped in psychobabble - a sure sign to me of something that won't stand up to intellectual scrutiny.

    I remember once having a long argument with a group of psychology undergraduates about an experiment they were proposing. They would take a puppy from an aggressive breed, such as a Doberman, and give it to a mother from a friendly one, such as a Golden Retriever. They said that the Doberman puppy would grow up to be docile and therefore the experiment would prove that behavior isn't genetic. They didn't seem to appreciate or understand my arguments as to why this wasn't a very good experiment.

    1. Re:Psychology is a very immature science by rlp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from talking to psych. undergrad students. I doubt that their professor will approve their "proposal". Talk to someone in a doctoral program - I think you'll see quite a different picture. After all - what conclusions would you draw talking to a group of neophyte comp. sci. students working on their first sorting algorithms?

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
    2. Re:Psychology is a very immature science by Mignon · · Score: 2
      This reminds me of a story I heard about the study of language development. The idea was to raise a baby chimp in parallel with a human baby, to give them the same environment, in effect, and see if the chmip could be taught human language.

      However the experiment was considered a failure when not only did the chimp not speak, but the human child began showing chimp behaviors.

      Pros:

      • Child likes bananas - good nutritional content.
      • Child is playful - usually gets along well with others. (See below.)

      Cons:

      • Child shrieks and flings poo when upset.
    3. Re:Psychology is a very immature science by markmoss · · Score: 2

      Mignon, good joke. But if you'd raised a few babies, you'd know that they don't have to be raised with a chimp -- or be upset -- to fling poo. You've got to brainwash them into NOT thinking it's fun, preferably before they figure oout how to unfasten the diapers.

  102. No you're not the only one by eWulf · · Score: 1

    I'm here with you too dude. My tendency is to think like that too.

    However, the bit in our makeup which probably makes us display some of the tendencies which are also associated with people diagnosed as 'Autistic', is also the bit which stops us realising that the 'stupid' people ruling over the smart people are usually not stupid at all. Its just that the kind of brain which makes memorizing facts and following logic easy sometimes cannot comprehend people whose skills are more 'fuzzy' and less analytical but at least as valuable in society, if not more so. This is something that we are not 'clever' enough to understand, clever as we might be in other arenas. Those skills just cannot be quantified and often include.

    i) A clear focus on purpose - never underestimate this
    ii) A power to inspire loyalty - you will have no business without loyalty
    iii) Keeping cool under pressure
    iv) Making, and sticking to decisions - vacillating doesn't get things done. It's better to make a bad decision than no decision. These are the people we geeks often label as 'stupid' because they don't see the world our way. The typical PHB. However, nothing is more important to the success of an enterprise than people who can single-mindedly pursue an end.

    A feeling of superiority comes with the nerd territory I'm afraid and may well be a 'disorder', using a broad definition of the term. This feeling is part of what makes it hard for us to get on with people so I guess it is, at least in some ways, a disorder.

    I find that looking at the people around me and really trying to understand what it is that makes them valuable helps a little. A lot of the time I still draw a blank though:-(

    --
    "If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" - Will Rogers
  103. It's just Darwinian adaptation! by retrosteve · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Okay, let's look at the evidence presented:

    - It's genetic
    - It's on the rise
    - It's not a disease and can't be cured.
    - It's higher in the children of smart people
    - It makes the kids bad at some things, better at others.

    Even without knowing what those things are, if someone just presented me with these points, I'd say it sounds like the humans are evolving.

    So let's look at what they're evolving into:

    No social skills : looks like they'll need to get in touch with people through computer chat instead, huh?

    High intelligence, repetitive behavior: I bet the new humans are really good at video games.

    Low verbal skills: Looks like voice interfaces won't be the way of the future.

    When more than 30% of new humans are "Autistic" we may start to find out what they're best at, and we may find that the future needs them more than 'us'. Assuming I'm not already one of them. I suspect I am.

    1. Re:It's just Darwinian adaptation! by remande · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I suspect that we, the geeks (or the autistic or AG or what have you) may be evolving, but not as a replacement to the non-geeky human. IMHO, we are the symbiote.


      I can't imagine a full geek culture succeeding. Maybe Microsoft is the biggest geek culture ever created. But could you really make a geek city, not just a work campus? I think such a city would collapse under its own weight. What does Silicon Valley need in non-geek people just to keep the peace and froth the latte?


      I think that you could build a civilization without geeks, but you can build a better one with them. Maybe geeks will evolve their own culture beyond Slashdot and Hot Grits, but the culture will be in the context of a bigger, non-geek culture. I don't think that you could separate the two types any more than you can seperate the two genders.

      --

      --The basis of all love is respect

  104. Nonsense, no genetic cause by Baki · · Score: 2

    Reading the article I find the suggestion that there might be a genetic cause extremely implausible and far fetched. First of all I hardly believe in math-"genes" at all, let alone that mating of two persions with those genes would produce some form of autistic children. Why would it, what evidence is there?

    There is a short hint at genetic caus of autism in the article, talking about identical twins often both having autism (or both not). This is so logical, and shows one of the common mistakes that psychology "science" so often makes with statistics and logic. Namely, suppose autism has a social cause (how the child is treated, handled by other people), since identical twins look the same and behave the same (at least initially) chances are they are treated the same by other people. In time they will diverge (a bit) but in the early years they are so similar that the social development due to how people treat them is very much alike. Thus, it is only very logical that either both become autistic, or both don't. To see a proof of a genetic cause for autism in that is just plain stupid.

    There could be other causes, such as environmental, mere speculation at the moment. But to worry about genes and IT-people ("math-genes" inbreed) is totally unfounded.

    1. Re:Nonsense, no genetic cause by Manuka · · Score: 2

      I think the POINT of the article was that it needs to be researched.

    2. Re:Nonsense, no genetic cause by teromajusa · · Score: 1

      I suppose that you might be right - if this article was the entire body of autism research. However, its just a high level popular discussion. There has been signifigant research into this, and the evidence is strongly in favor of a genetic link.

      Next time you form an opinion on something, you might want to base it on something other than a popular article written by an non-expert. ;)

    3. Re:Nonsense, no genetic cause by digaman · · Score: 1

      This was exactly the point. There is plenty of evidence that at least the majority of cases of autism (not all) have *some* genetic component. Readers might want to check out those studies before making blanket pronouncements that it's "nonsense." I tried to make it pretty clear that genetic predisposition could make kids more vulnerable to environmental factors. I wasn't trying to *rule out* anything, just raise a question as to one possible contributing factor in a very particular and unusual community. The research has barely begun.

    4. Re:Nonsense, no genetic cause by bob_jenkins · · Score: 1

      If one identical twin has autism, the other does too, 9 out of 10 times. If one child in a family has autism, the chances of the next having autism too are 1 in 20. 1 in 3 if two children already have autism. That's quite a correlation to genetics. It does imply that it involves more than one gene, otherwise the 90% for identical twins would imply at least 45% for separate siblings.

    5. Re:Nonsense, no genetic cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most twin research such as this, however, is done with 1) twins who were seperated at bith by adoption or twins in comparison with their siblings of close age

  105. WHORES! by dankjones · · Score: 0, Troll

    Give em WHORES! and MALE WHORES!

  106. So Nick can't "read" people by philipneal · · Score: 1
    IANAN but I was intellectually a long way ahead of my age group when I was a boy, and I often fell for practical jokes through difficulty in detecting deliberate lies.

    The reason, I now think, is that I was all too used to being misinformed by other children because of their relative ignorance. This made it hard to filter out the minority of cases where I was being misinformed on purpose. The problem goes away in adult life as other people catch up and you can choose friends on your own intellectual level. It is notable that you generally find this complaint from people raised in an intellectual family background and much less often from very intelligent people whose parents were not highly educated.

    I don't think I believe in Asperger's syndrome. Real autism, which I have occasionally come across, is a huge and unmistakeable handicap.

    1. Re:So Nick can't "read" people by digaman · · Score: 1

      > I don't think I believe in Asperger's syndrome. Real autism, which I have occasionally come across, is a huge and unmistakeable handicap.

      If you met 100 people with Asperger's Syndrome, such as Nick, as I did, the behavioral signatures are quite distinctive, if not 'unmistakeable.' I've been writing for Wired since 1993 -- I'm not apt to mistake standard geeky-kid-dom for a neurological syndrome. I meet very bright, very tech-savvy young people who don't give a flying fuck about social niceties all the time. They're some of my favorite people. This is something else.

      Generally, I've found that outright disbelief in the existence of autistic spectrum disorders is in inverse proportion to time spent with autistic people and their families.

    2. Re:So Nick can't "read" people by philipneal · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but the Wired article could be read as saying that Asperger's (as distinct from classic autism) simply is the same thing as geekiness. I can't say I am sorry that various old teachers of mine had never heard of it.

  107. Not a social type no ability to ever be social by marcovje · · Score: 1


    The article is nice in its description of autism (
    and not Rainman'ing too much), but detoriates in
    the engineering thing.

    It seems that the author is confusing symptom and cause.

    Symptom: unsocial behaviour by average standards

    Cause 1 : Neural disorder with failure to learn
    social behaviour "autistic"
    Cause 2 : Long time social contacts mostly with peers. Result: Social standards of group geeks
    deviates from mass. Actual problem: none. Purely cultural.

    Cause 1 Cause 2

  108. Mod the parent up by Peter+Dyck · · Score: 1
    "When the monkey people leave you alone, it's a happy world".

    I couldn't agree more. Your post is truly insightful in its uncompromising harshness.

    I wish I had written it.

    I also wish the monkey people would leave me alone.

    1. Re:Mod the parent up by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      I want that on a T-shirt. Thinkgeek, are you listening?

      Rich

  109. The problem with diagnosing by one's behavior... by Two99Point80 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...is that this approach can easily ignore why the behavior is taking place - that is, what the internal state of the individual is.

    I was given a dual High-Functioning Autism/Asperger diagnosis by TEACCH in 1994, when I was 46. The dx was confirmed by the University of Pittsburgh when I participated in its autism study. (This is why my nick is the diagnostic code for autism.) FWIW two accounts of my experiences with autism, presented at an AS conference in Sweden in early 1998, are here and here. There is also a huge amount of Asperger info and resources here.

    From my perspective, labeling autism as a "fad" or an "excuse" does no one any good. While it might be possible for neurotypical folks to mimic autistic behavior, that is very different from an autistic person being unable to consistently emulate nonautistic behavior and having to put up with the consequences of that 24/7.

    There seems a huge amount of misunderstanding regarding autism, much from folks who have a great many expectations of, or assumptions about, autistic folks' behavior. Motives are imputed to our behavior and appearence, as when my often-flat expression and tone of voice are taken as signs that I am upset. (By that interpretation, Data is pissed off nearly all the time.)

    IMO what is needed most is a sociological approach to autism, to complement the existing medical/psychological one. This is already underway at a grass-roots level by various folks on the autism spectrum - one early example, a message to parents of autistic children, may be found here.

  110. Urban myth by uebernewby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People with autism show extreme ability in some area of scientific or artistic endeavor but extreme retardation in basic human social and communication skills (i.e. some can barely speak).

    Bzzt. Autism, as in "the bonafide psychiatric/neurological disorder called autism" does not equal "extreme ability in one area vs. extreme retardation in social and communication skills". It's a genuine, empirically verifiable form of brain damage that *primarily* leads to severe retardation of social skills (and that, I can assure you, is a very broad category of skills), but to other forms of retardation as well. The so-called "Idiot Savant" is nowhere near as sexy as urban mythology would have you believe. If you were to take a look at the fruits of these so-called "extreme abilities", you'd find that they aren't that wonderful at all, they show insistence to do something, but not any form of talent, genius or what have you. Rather, they look like they were done by someone with Down Syndrome, but in a very mechanical, monomanic way.

    Someone else in this thread mentions another popular misconception, that of Einstein being an example of an autist: this, too, is wildly off the mark. Sure, he was a bad student, but for the most part his social skills were well within "normal" range.

    If you were to meet an autist in real life, you'd find that, to put it bluntly, he'd be a "retard", hardly distinguishable from other "retards".

    --

    News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    1. Re:Urban myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are ignoring the mild form of Autism called Asperger's sundrome (or high-function autism). People with Asperger's are fairly normal, except for varying problems in social interaction, a preoccupation with a certain field (often computers), above-average IQs and engineering skills, and mild symptoms of autism (e.g. 'rocking' or 'finger flapping').

      Bill Gates fits the Asperger's mould perfectly, as do most hackers. Richard Stallman has said that he suffers from high-function autism on many occasions.

    2. Re:Urban myth by uebernewby · · Score: 2

      Bill Gates, however, is the child of two very well educated parents who held very high and time consuming positions. That would account, at least in part, for his socially abberant behavior.

      It would seem to me that Asperger's syndrome is much closer to something like obsessive-compulsive disorder (a psychological condition that, like all others, is rather vaguely defined, but which, if it's severe enough, definitely is pathological). True autists have damaged brains. I'm pretty sure Bill Gates and Richard Stallman don't.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    3. Re:Urban myth by fiftyfly · · Score: 1

      There is also _significant_ debate as to what, exactly, aspergers actually is. I believe Dr. Asperger first used the term to describe a group of rather (not anti, but perhaps non-social?) boys who were not considered autistic. I would figure that using that as a basis for actuall diagnosis would be akin, for example, to calling something "rickets" with first knowing anything about nutrional defeciencies.

      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
    4. Re:Urban myth by cel · · Score: 1

      I disagree quite a bit about autistic people being perceived as "retards." Admittedly my experiences with autism are from interacting with a child, but I think that's still valid.

      My 12-year old brother has autism. To the untrained observer, he looks, talks, and acts like a "regular" kid, with a few strange deviations. To someone who lives with him, he's definitely not a "regular" kid, but he doesn't seem "retarded" using the stereotypical definition of that word.

      It's important to remember that autism is a spectrum disorder--from severe learning and language, and social impairments to mild high-functioning impairments (read: interacts with others mostly "normally" but is somewhat weird and usually has a few learning disabilities). So, no, if you meet a person with autism, you may just think he's weird if he's high-functioning like my little brother. Also, not all people with autism are anti-social. My brother is very social, he enjoys being with people. He has a hard time making friends because other kids think he's weird, not because he doesn't try or isn't approachable. This is the standard school-yard cruelty most geeks encounter, only it's worse because he doesn't understand why kids act this way. Social cues like this are lost on him.

      I also object to your use of the word "retard." It's very subjective, and not very descriptive. Children with Down's Syndrome (who suffer from mild to moderate retardation) are usually quite friendly and open to social interaction. The same is true for other causes of mental retardation. It should also be pointed out that retardation doesn't equal stupid--retarded children can be taught and are as eager to learn as "normal" children.

    5. Re:Urban myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay uebernewbie you get points for understanding that the extreme gifts notion is bunk. Savantism is more common in autism than the general population but the majority of autistics are not savants.
      I assume from how late I am replying that you will have already been upbraided for saying if you "met and autist in real life ... he'd be a retard, hardly distinguishable from other retards.But I can't let it pass.
      I am one of those "retards" Every type of retardation is unique. We tend to prefer the term develpmental delay.
      Intelligence on the autistic spectrum varies widely. It is also ahrd to accurately determine. So the same autistic person at 3 and 5 may be thought to be hopeless and cognitively impaired in addition to the autism and later if they are able to speak at some point opinion swings upwards. I was considered retarded at 5. I have never met someone with a higher IQ than what they say I have now. Some people with autism are mentally challenged but even so these challenges are still unique from those of other people with challenges. When I was young popular opinion among parent with "retarded kids" was that if you had to have a retarded one Down's syndrome was the best and autism the worst. This was based on the false notion that autism means an inability to love and every parent sure wants their kid to love them.
      Now autism has become so distorted by movies that focus on things that are true for only a small portion of people and leave out all the true nitty gritty day to day life with autism things that now who knows what they would say about best and worst. Even an individual with a label is still an individual.
      I don't mind if you call me a retard some people do it for fun every day. I am socially retarded for sure and also with communcation in it's non word forms. I say I don't mind if you call me that because being called something that isn't true by something that thinks they are qualified to comment on the subject based on mass generated media garbage can't hurt me.
      It would be more painful to be in your position.

    6. Re:Urban myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asperger's syndrome the way it has been spun for consumpiton by people like you as milder autism might seem that way. It isn't milder autism it is different autism. The only technical difference between the two is when and if you learn to speak. Bill Gates has no diagnosis of autism. The opinion of most of the autists I discuss this issue with is it is the most irritating piece of nonesense to have him lumped in. Autistic people have high standards. No product as bad as Windows would get released and rer-released if someone who had anything remotely ressembling actual Asperger's syndrome or any other form of autism was in charge.
      Different brians is more correct than damaged brains. There are areas that are different size than in the normal population but they are not damaged in the sense that they were not once some other size or shape and something happened to them. Some of the differences are only processing differences if I look at people and objects the information is processed in the same area of my brain for "normal" people for some reason they use a seperate one for people. To me this seems inefficient but I suppose I won't call the typical population damaged.

  111. I would hazard a guess by Smugg · · Score: 1

    that the lack of proper social interaction with parents has more influence than any other enviromental concerns - american and geeks that's a double whammy!

  112. "Wired?" I think you meant to type "Weird." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can totally relate to that Nick kid.... :(

    1. Re:"Wired?" I think you meant to type "Weird." by spiro_killglance · · Score: 2

      Nice joke, (i hope), if you can relate to
      him, your not autistic.


      I can totally relate to Autistics, is right
      up there with,


      Its so nice to meet another solaspist.

  113. Jargon File by gdr · · Score: 1
    I think a quote from the Jargon File is in order here.
    The sort of person who routinely uses phrases like `incompletely socialized' usually thinks hackers are. Hackers regard such people with contempt when they notice them at all.
    The Jargon File has quite a bit to say about the hacker personality, worth looking at.
  114. Re:The problem with diagnosing by one's behavior.. by Smugg · · Score: 1

    I other words autism is just another of the excuses certain individuals use for inadequate perfomance - here in the UK the current fad is Kitchen Performance Anxiety Syndrome - apparantly certain weak individuals are too frightened to cook because they might not match the results achieved by TV chefs. The inadequate among us will always try to foist excuses onto their betters, and unfortunately society appears to accept these stupid excuses.

  115. ahhhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ironically I first heard of this a few days ago and after reading details of it, I somewhat self-diagnosed myself to have this.. after seeing it now on Slashdot I'm near certain of it..... I'm reading this thing.. thinking.. damn.. this is so me.... I remember going through high school and I would spend hours or days throughout the night coding ungodly difficult things and I couldn't understand most people in my class.. I wasn't made fun of much, I'm fairly good looking and was popular, but at the same rate, I never talked much nor really had many friends. The kinda funny thing is, I swear it's getting worse with age, for me at least. I feel so weird about this right now I don't even want to talk about it...

    1. Re:ahhhhhh by bob_jenkins · · Score: 1

      Er. I may be mistaken, but you're description is better explained by lack of common interests than by lack of ability to interpret social cues.

  116. Richard Faynman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you read some of the stuff that Richard Fenyman writes about hanging around in bars ? or the time that he was nearly arrested by the milliary for telling them that he could break into their safes while he was working for them ?

    Brilliant, yes, normal, no !

    1. Re:Richard Faynman by streetlawyer · · Score: 1

      Brilliant, yes, normal, no, "disabled" no, and both "Faynman" and "Fenyman", also no.

  117. I blame it all on the marketing! by the+N+man · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It would be a lot easier to market stuff if we all wanted the same. But we don't! Even if most people seem to think that everybody wants to be just like themselves. Or if they don't want to, they should.

    Some people want to be famous, and they try to be pop/film stars. Some people want to be intelligent, and they study science or engineering or coding... Some want to have lots of friends, and they try to be funny and fun to be with. Some want to devote their lives to God and become monks. Some want to be adventurous and take on adrenaline charged activities.

    Through training, all these people develop different abilities and personality traits. Of course it will not be common for a football player to have the mental arithmetic of an accountant; and it won't be easy to find a geek who can crack jokes like a professional comedian; or a mathematician who feels as comfortable in front of a camera as your average pop star.

    If you feel uneasy and uncomfortable with some aspect of your personality (you're too shy, too clever, too sexy...), it's good to have someone ready to help you deal with it. But I can't see the point of going around saying that if someone has such and such behaviour, they're not normal and need treatment. Bullocks to that!!! If you're reasonably happy with the way you are, and you are able to do the things you like to do, you're fine in my book!

    What good are social skills if what you enjoy is being an ermit in your isolated cave? What good is being a top notch C++ guru if what you want is to be a chef?

    Decide in which way you want to be different from the crowds, and then don't let anybody tell you you're not normal. Because you're not, but that's OK. And don't fool yourself: you're not better either.

    --

    --
    sig is gone.

    1. Re:I blame it all on the marketing! by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      good point, maybe

  118. "Social skills" are for people who can't do tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "[Asperger's patients are] children who lack basic social and motor skills, seem unable to decode body language and sense the feelings of others, avoid eye contact"

    I remember years ago a (non-tech) girlfriend was trying to split up with me, but too much of a wuss to come out and say it. When I finally got her to do that, she complained about how I was a techie with no social skills and couldn't "get the message". Of course the reality was that I knew exactly what "message" she was trying to send, but couldn't care less... if she wanted to split up she could damn well have the guts to do so rather than expect me to go away, and I'm sure that many of the other people who are considered "lacking social skills" are in precisely the same position; we don't lack them at all, we just don't give a damn.

    I have more than enough "basic social skills" to pick up women and get laid when I so choose, but other than that, what value do they have? People who put "social skills" above tech skills end up flipping burgers and running autism studies, rather than making a ton of money in IT.

  119. Niche Regional Spikes by KarmaBlackballed · · Score: 2

    I truly doubt there is an increase in autism, just an increase in the number of children they are diagnosing as autistic.

    If it were just a matter of over-diagnosis for profit motive, we would likely see such an over diagnosis in all affluent areas, not just geographical regions of technical expertise. There is probably something here since the spikes are showing up in Silicon Valley and not Beverly Hills.

    I think psychology is mostly a bunch of gibberish that's many times misapplied, but Psychiatrists and gene researchers may be onto something here.

    --

    --- -- - -
    Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
    1. Re:Niche Regional Spikes by scott1853 · · Score: 2

      Maybe silicon valley has a high number of psychologists that need to pay their rent and all the dot-bomb survivors are almost over their woes?

      Or maybe the numbers were fudged to prove sombodies point. It's not the first time that's been done.

  120. Re: false representation of the logic involved by leereyno · · Score: 2

    I never got the idea that the article was trying to say that being an engineer/hacker/geek somehow made you autistic, let alone that this change would become genetic and be passed down to your kids. Rather what the article was trying to say is that both autism/asperger's and being a geek share a common, or related, cause.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  121. Eitiology doesn't matter- by filtersweep · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (I DID read the entire article when it first came out)-

    Whether it is genetic, or environmental ("odd" socialization that is somehow "learned" by children) it really doesn't matter, the outcome is the same.

    What concerns me the most is how "disease theory" operates, and how certain diseases (especially mental disorders) become "in vogue." This goes all the way back to Freud (say what you will)- but as a newly emerging middle class had more "idle time" on their hands, and as newly affluent wives developed widely publicized anxiety disorders, the disorder eventually trickled down to the rest of the population.

    -not to mention of diagnosis by practioneers is practically contagious.

    I work in the field, and have seen wild diagnostic trends- in the 80s we saw an explosion in the diagnosis of depression and BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder). In the early 90s MPD (multiple personalities) was widely diagnosed (way above the prevalence rates shown by any "hard research"- and now MPD is not even in the diagnostic manual). Then we've seen the diagnosis of everything under the sun for our children- (ADD, ADHD, ODD, it goes on and on... BTW- ODD stands for "Oppositional Defiant Disorder"- these are just KIDS were talking about here! All kids can be ODD.).

    For many parents it is ultimately "cool" to have a kid with a diagnosis... it lets them off the hook. It lets educators off the hook. How many of you went to primary school in the 70s and sat in a class of 30+ and were taught by a 60+ year old ex-nun with a two-year teaching certificate who had absolutely NO PROBLEM maintaining discipline in the classroom?

    Aspergers IS relatively new as a *widespread* diagnosis- it is in essence a "disease of the week." After the inevitable backlash, we'll be having this discussion about some other "disorder" and Aspergers will be an odd footnote of early 21st Century child psychology.

    --


    Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
    1. Re:Eitiology doesn't matter- by Rimbo · · Score: 2

      What worries me most about such crazes are not the many kids who don't have a disorder who are diagnosed with it, but rather the few who actually suffer from it who might be then ignored in the backlash to the fad later on.

      Autism's one of those things that you can have varying degrees of -- from none at all, to full-on autism, to anything in the middle. It's not "on" or "off" so much. Because of this, just about everyone can be diagnosed with Asperger's, depending on how it's defined.

      But meanwhile, it's clear to me that what's happening in Silicon Valley and elsewhere is very real, and not just a bunch of parents freaking out. How they deal with it -- therapy and specialists and other bizarre behavior -- is very different from how I'd deal with it, but there's little doubt in my mind that this is not purely the result of the "disease of the month" syndrome.

    2. Re:Eitiology doesn't matter- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aspergers is real. It is not the "disease of the week". Your comment trivializes the plight of many parents, like myself who have had the joy and pain of having a child with Aspergers. My son was born in 1985 when this was disorder was not well understood. He was called mildly autistic at this time, but he was not like a classic autistic child. My son was high functioning but had all the effect of aspergers. This syndrome caused, at least in my son case, to be like a lamb in a sea of wolves, since he was kind and gentle and very naive to the ways of the world. Yes, there will be plenty of misdiagnosis given, but there are plenty of real children effected by this disorder. Aspergers needs more research. An effective treatment needs to be found. Asperger is not like ADD where there is some sort of magic bullet or a class to be shunted to, it is a syndrome of shades, not every child is effected the same way, some are low functioning, some are high functioning. Each is different as a snowflake. My son was lucky enough to be able to get the system to work for him, no drugs, no special Ed room, just hard sweat and tears to teach him the social ques he missed, to teach him that him that he mattered, to teach him to concentrate on the out world. I know it is easy to toss it out as the disease of the week, but we are talking about real people with real problems.

    3. Re:Eitiology doesn't matter- by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
      Yeah, but it's possible to survive ignored Asperger's. Sounds harsh, I know, but people do. I did. I grew up with full-on blatantly obvious Asperger's to the point of actively fleeing classes and social groupings, sometimes having sensory hypersensitivities more akin to autism proper, I actually failed to complete the normal social procedure called 'college', and I still survived. I tried to commit suicide, but not terribly hard- I got mixed up in drugs and survived that too (don't use anymore)- and now, at 33, I am glad to be alive, and I have a life that's nothing extravagant but which fits me at last.

      I got through all this years before people even _heard_ of autism or Asperger's, way before it was 'popular' to make such diagnoses right and left. I don't think any sort of backlash can hurt people like me. Sometimes it's just freaking obvious what's going on. It really wouldn't have taken much to improve my childhood and adolescence- even the HINT of a possible reason why I was so hopelessly, meaninglessly out of place in society would have helped a lot. And now, nobody need _ever_ go through what I went through. Now people have a clue. Let 'em label away, and then backlash, whatever. At least The Clue Is Out There.

    4. Re:Eitiology doesn't matter- by Rimbo · · Score: 1

      "At least The Clue Is Out There."

      Quote of the fuckin' year. I love it.

      Another day, another meme... :)

  122. reality check by f00zbll · · Score: 1
    Although it's great more kids are getting help, part of me feels something isn't right. The article debates the issues and proposes a combination of nature and nurture as the cause for increased cases the last 2 years. A lot of different opinions are given in the posts, but I can't help but wonder did the chicken or the egg come first.

    A lot of comments posted and the view of the article focuses on good and bad. Ideas like these are human constructs. There is a saying in philosophy "there is no natural law." Definitions of good/bad are false constructs of what people expect. People seem to have a hard time realizing humans have no more control over their own destiney than a worm. Sure we can build computers, rockets, cars and other insane devices, but we have no more control over the fate of the world than a rock. Diseases or illnesses are problems when society defines it unacceptable. As the article states, Asperger's idea of the continium seems to be a better way of approaching the problem "how to help kids who are different." The execution of diagnosis and treatment is where I find fault.

    Who does it really benefit? People need to focus less on money, greed, and status. If my child had some problem, the obvious thing to do is change my life so that i can spend as much time as i can with my child. Running from doctor to doctor to gets tons of tests and diagnosis so that I can keep a high paying job and state funding for my child's treatment just doesn't seem right. People need to step back and look at how "stupid" some of our choices and actions are.

    In reality, it's neither good or bad to be different. Everyone is different and everyone has some odd behavior. That is what makes the world fun and exciting. Trying to weed out some gene is eugenics, plain and simple. Scientists need to consider the depth of their actions before they cross the line of "helping humanity" into "destroying humanity."

  123. social skills by Bake · · Score: 1

    So, uhm, how do you define the "normal" range of social skills?

    1. Re:social skills by uebernewby · · Score: 2

      That, of course, is open to debate. But if you were to meet someone who suffers from the *neurological* disorder I'm pretty sure we'd both agree his level social skills is pathological.

      A lot of reclusive loners can function socially, i.e., they know how to read emotions in others, maybe not very well, but they *will*, for example, understand that if someone is yelling at them, that someone is angry. Someone with neurological autism can't do this.

      But yes, I agree with you that it's hard to define where "normal" stops and "pathological" begins in some cases. For instance, one of my g/f's students is an iffy case who *seems* to not know that when he vents his opinions every time he disagrees with one of his teachers, they'll get mad at him. He attracts trouble because he apparently doesn't realise the consequences of his actions, and he doesn't really interact well with his peers either. Whether this makes him a (very) difficult child or an autist isn't quite clear, however. He has suffered severe trauma in his early childhood (father committed suicide), so that *may* also be a cause of his "weird" behavior. But until they get a psychiatrist to take a look at him, the exact nature of his problem is anyone's guess.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    2. Re:social skills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't lose the attitiude, I'm going to lock my self in my room for 12 hours and write computer programs. What do you think about that?

      Oh, you don't case...

  124. Re:The problem with diagnosing by one's behavior.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OTOH if you are an autistic-spectrum person who CAN consistently emulate nonautistic behaviour, then, well, the world's your oyster, because you'll find yourself able to manipulate the emotions of the "sheep" to fulfil your intellectual goals...

  125. I'm a living example of Asperger's syndrome by leereyno · · Score: 2

    Many of the symptoms that this article described, particularly "stimming" fit me to a T. While I don't do it as much as I did as a kid, I sometime wriggle my hands back and forth very quickly. I'm not sure why I do this really and until I read this article I didn't even think it signified anything. In terms of social skills I used to be a total social misfit. That began to change in high school, but only because I REALLY worked at it long and hard. Today I've got good social skills, but they didn't come easily. I get along well with both "geeks" and with "normal people," although being around geeks is kind of unnerving because I see in them many of the same behaviors I once exhibited, and looking in that kind of mirror is never pleasant. I used to think that those who had bad social skills and so forth were just not trying hard enough. I mean if I could go from being the prime social outcast in the mini-community that is junior and senior high school, to being one of the outlying members of the "in crowd," then why couldn't the other geeks at least have average social skills? I used to think that they gave up on having good relationships with others and instead chose to curl up in a shell away from all the pain. Now I think that maybe it isn't a matter of giving up or not trying hard enough. Maybe it is a matter of being born a certain way and as a result having a much bigger cross to bear socially than others.

    There is an oft-used euphemism and linguistic evasion for those who are disabled. Instead of calling a spade a spade they are referred to as "differently abled." In the case of someone with asperger's I think this is an accurate description. I'm VERY good with computers, and things like science and math (except arithmetic) have always seemed more like things I already knew and were reminded of while studying them than anything I actually learned outright. Coinciding with this is a lack of fine motor skills whereby I had a very hard time learning to write and today avoid pencil and paper like the plague, and the early lack of social skills I've already mentioned. I will also sometimes rock back and forth although in my case I'll do it maybe two or three times a month, so I don't know if that means anything.

    Things like Asperger's syndrome, ADD, dyslexia, etc. illuminate the ways in which people are different, and the gifts and curses those differences can bestow.

    Lee

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  126. There is no answer - Life is a Struggle. by totierne · · Score: 1

    Maybe having people on the edge reminds us how vulnerable people are, and aids development if for some reason the edge skills turn out to be useful in other ways.
    -Postcard from the edge.

  127. dumb people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's infatuated with fantasy novels, but he has a hard time reading people.


    Eventually he'll realize that most people aren't all that complicated, they're just dumb.

  128. Normal vs. Autistic by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Let us define some traits of each of these, and
    see how they weigh up:


    Normal People:

    • Don't care about understanding - everything
      round them should just read their minds, damn it!
    • Get infected with e-mail viruses on a regular
      basis
    • Prefer AOL, as it does the thinking for them
    • Buy products marked "digital", because it's
      a cool word, regardless of whether those products
      are any different from anything else out there or
      not
    • Have the imagination of a doormouse, the
      inquisitiveness of a mushroom, and a faith in
      simple interfaces that the religions of the world
      can only stand and marvel at.


    Autistic people:

    • Have phenominal memories for patterns and
      symbolic logic
    • Have the social skills of a dead slug
    • Generally don't work well with ambiguity
    • Develop a survival mechanism of focussing on
      -something-. The more "autistic" a person is, on
      the autistic spectrum, the more important it is to
      filter out the "background noise" of their
      environment. If they didn't, they'd go nuts.
    • Generally work best on their own, or in small
      groups. Large groups put the mind on overload.
    • Can map out complex interrelationships between
      abstract concepts, in the mind, usually in some
      symbolic way. It's as easy for an autistic person
      as changing channels on the TV.


    There are no more "autistic" people than there
    used to be. The difference is, they're no longer
    being put into mental institutions, locked up and
    forgotten. They're getting $$$ in computing,
    instead.


    (Which only goes to show that society is fickle.
    People rather reject "problem people" than see how
    they could be beneficial. If you've watched the
    news, in the past 3 months, I'm sure you can name
    a fair number of "problem people" that society is
    hell-bent on rejecting. Maybe society has no real
    option, maybe it does. It's the reflex reaction of
    destroying the different that is the real enemy,
    though, in my humble opinion.)


    P.S. I'm diagnosed Aspergers, with Bipolar I. The
    labels are useful, because they help me see what
    my mind is chemically & electrically designed to
    do. It's no different from labelling a computer as
    a Pentium III, or a PA-RISC. Each of them is
    suited for different types of task than the other.
    It doesn't make one "better" or "worse", in the
    abstract, but only in the context of running a
    specific class of algorithms. Or, to put it
    another way, the best, the most accurate clock in
    the world makes a damn lousy web browser. Not
    because of a defect in the clock, but because it's
    not - and never was - configured to be a web
    browser. If it were, it could not be the most
    accurate clock in the world, as it would need to
    spend time handling HTML, et al.


    Psychological labels are powerful tools. But only
    if used correctly. But we're already familiar with
    that. DDD is a powerful debugger... ...if you're
    a programmer. Hand it to Joe Schmuck, and they
    would be hopelessly confused.


    A psychological label tells you, in general terms,
    something about the configuration of the brain. It
    really doesn't do any more than that. With enough
    time and effort, any person with any brain CAN do
    anything any other person can do, the same way a
    PA-RISC chip can run a Pentium III emulator. But
    you're burning a hell of a lot of brain cycles in
    the process. Doesn't it just make a hell of a lot
    more sense to forget about "others", and use your
    brain for something it can do, and do phenominally
    well, that you enjoy? Emulators can be useful, but
    don't make them your entire life.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Normal vs. Autistic by iBod · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that some of the attributes you ascribe solely to autistic poeple are quite often found in 'normal' people too.

      DDD is a powerful debugger... ...if you're a programmer. Hand it to Joe Schmuck, and they would be hopelessly confused...

      What if Joe Schmuck was a brain surgeon, or a concert pianist, or a playwright - he'd still be a schmuck because he didn't know how to use DDD, right?

    2. Re:Normal vs. Autistic by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      Don't be so accepting of it. As far as I'm concerned it's a damnable way to live, and I hate every second of it. I can't fathom such acceptance any more than I can fathom how a 'normal' person thinks. You really can't stand there with a happy face and convince me that it doesn't suck.

      -

    3. Re:Normal vs. Autistic by jd · · Score: 2
      I can't change it, no matter how much I curse, throw things around, sulk, stomp my foot, etc. Nothing I can do can make any difference.


      Many treatments for bipolar disorder can take the edge off Autism, but that's about all they do. There is no "cure" for it. There are some pretty good reasons for believing there never will be.


      Finally, by accepting it, I can turn the "problems" into "solutions". Sure, it's a damnable way to live, but I have the power to make it the most pleasent damnable way I can. It's not a "perfect" answer, but it's better than the Victorian Era's answer of locking up all who were different, in cold, damp cells, where you were fed if you were lucky, and where abuse was the rule, not the exception.


      (I call it a "Victorian" attitude, but England was still much like that, into the 1960's, and there were still people being commited & abandoned, even when they were perfectly fine, into the 1990's.)


      When we talk of "good" and "bad", we can't really talk in absolutes, as nobody really knows what absolute "good" and "bad" are. But we can talk about relative "good" and "bad". Relatively speaking, I have a life of absolute luxury and ease, compared to what I would have had, if I'd been born a mere 20-30 years earlier. I probably wouldn't have survived "English Hospitality", 100 years ago.


      Sure, lithium ain't a bundle of laughs, and being a social cripple hurts. But I'm not stupid, and with time I'll work round those. A single generation earlier, and I wouldn't have had a prayer. Burying me alive would have been more humane than attitudes in my father's or grandfather's day.


      "Count your blessings" might sound like an easy way out, a delusion to hide the hurt. For some, that is probably true. It can also be used the way the Constitution is used - as a guard to ensure that the hurt is limited and contained, and that it can never be allowed to run rampant again.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Normal vs. Autistic by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The chances are, the "exceptional" brain surgeon, concert pianist, or playwright, are "exceptional" precicely because they are on the autistic spectrum. (Accountancy seems to be one of the few professions where no correlation exists. That's actually been observed!)


      As such, each of those people will have their own "DDD"'s, in their own profession. The name doesn't matter, it's the nature of the understanding that counts. Symbolic, visual associations are key to autism. (There's a GREAT book on the subject, called "Somebody, Somewhere". It explains this in much more detail, and much better, than I could.)


      The use of symbolism to create or manipulate the physical, RATHER than having some direct association, is the key to identifying an autistic profession. I'm firmly convinced that whoever devised musical notation was autistic, as it is a purely abstract, symbolic notation. It has no relationship, other than imagery, with the music it represents.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:Normal vs. Autistic by iBod · · Score: 1
      whoever devised musical notation was autistic, as it is a purely abstract, symbolic notation. It has no relationship, other than imagery, with the music it represents.

      I slightly dissagree. The musical stave maps pretty well to the physical process of selecting pitches on a keyboard instrument. It's almost a schematic for the way ones fingers move physically up and down the keyboard.

      Perhaps written languages illustrate your point better - i.e. there is no relationship between the symbolic glyphs C, A and T and the sound one physically makes when saying 'cat' or indeed the concept of 'a cat'.

    6. Re:Normal vs. Autistic by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      You should take a college course on brain biology. Dunno if you have already. It would definitely improve your brain-computer metaphors :)

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    7. Re:Normal vs. Autistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I SO heard that.


      You sound like me about 16 years ago. Really. I could have written that very paragraph.


      There are things you can do. I'm reiterating a previous post to some degree here, but to hell with that. Group therapy is incredibly usefull, and not because you're crazy or neurotic or anything - it provides you with a forum in which you can start to fight the syndrome. You can find mental aids for dealing with it, you can find out what signals you are unknowingly sending out to other people, you can work on the (very very hard) task of learning normal nonverbal dialog.


      You have to commit to it. What's the alternative? Is putting a bullet in your brain really easier than making the choice to try to learn some new behaviours, some methods of going around the outside of the problem? Is sitting alone in your room hating the life you're living really preferable?


      I say all this in genuine sincerity. I hated the Aspie life more than I can ever tell you, but with a lot of work and perserverance I was starting to get good results within a couple of years. I even started having a sex life (to my astonishment, and with several women - now that's positive feedback). Now I'm married and have a daughter whom I love to pieces. Do I still want to run away whenever I'm forced to deal with people? You bet, but I don't. The dragon can be tamed.


      Don't ever get discouraged. It is the hardest battle you can face, but you can overcome a tremendous amount of it. You just have to make some truly scary choices. Go to your doctor and get into a good therapy program. Therapy itself will make you feel like a fucking idiot and a failure - it is an inherent admission of failure in some sense, but they are there to teach you new ways of doing things, and if you go into it with a pure heart, it can help. Work on it hard and every day. Eighty percent of the trick is sheer behaviour mod - change your behaviours enough and eventually they will start to become more natural.


      It can be done.

    8. Re:Normal vs. Autistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, you seem well reasoned and I liked the dead slug thing, but you too are another one of those sad cases where you just swallow the bullshit that's being fed to you. Enjoy, um, doing what your brain was "chemically and electronically designed to do". Just make sure you don't take any of the blame, OK? No sirreee, absolutely NOTHING you can do about anything. And they call me Coward, pshaw.

  129. If this is autism... by darrad · · Score: 1

    A WYSIWYG world, where respect and rewards are based strictly on merit, is an Asperger's dream
    ...then we could use a lot more of it. I am so tired of people who have no clue getting ahead in life based on who they know, not what they know. I would love a world in which rewards are based on merit. Sign me up!!

    1. Re:If this is autism... by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the fact that someone knows someone enables them to accomplish what is needed. I used to think that a meritocracy would be my idea of utopia. But then I thought again. Often a person gets a job because of who they know. And then the person they know mentors them into a place where they are very very good at their job. It's just a thought.

  130. No, not quite. by Bake · · Score: 1

    My point was that social behaviour is one of those "feely" things that cannot and SHOULD not be defined, at least up to the point that people suffer from it. I mean, there's about 5 billion of us on this shithole of a planet, putting people into groups like "normal people","losers" etc. just isn't fair. Expecting 5 billion people to act and be "normal" just can not be done! And who will it be who decides what is "normal" and what isn't? You? I sincerely hope not.

    Why can't people just ACCEPT the SIMPLE fact that people ARE DIFFERENT!

    1. Re:No, not quite. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Expecting 5 billion people to act and be "normal" just can not be done!
      actual it can, and sould be done. Just not to narrow.
      It seems to me your summering from a vary common dysfunction called:
      "idontknowthedefinitionofnormal-ides"
      normal (nôrml)
      adj.
      Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.

      Not being normal is not bad. nobody daid it was.
      someone who is 7 feet tall is not normal. that does not mena there bad, smart, stupid, nice, mean, etc... it just meens they fall outside of a certain range.
      It is good to have a broadly defined "normal" so people whoi fall outside this range can be looked at to see if there is any problems. In my example a doctor can look at a patients chart and say "hhmm, we better be sure to check this person knees and ankles because they are more likely to have a problem then someone who falls into the norm". Does that mean he will have problems with his knees? no, just more likely then someone who is 5'10".

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  131. What's your problem, man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Obviously, not a contentious loser like you.


    I have been reading your comments on this story, and I find this remark of yours ridiculously ironic. Read his comment again and then read your reply. Who is being contentious here? He didn't throw out random insults like you seem to enjoy doing in your comments.


    It is ludicrous to generalize and lump all techies together like you seem to be doing. Geeks have as many varied interests as non-geeks. The only broad distinction that one can make about geeks is that they are generally more enlightened than non-geeks, and yes, that does mean that sometimes they are given to introspection and solitude more than many other groups of people. Geeks are better able to understand the truism of existence within themselves and between the individuals that we actually are.



    Really, is your point that the obsessive fixation on triviality and hermit-like reclusion so popular and held in such esteem here ("hackers that lock themselves away for xx hours"?) is actually all right and normal? that calling any aberrant behavior is just, like, your opinion, man?


    Really, is your point that the obsessive fixation on alcohol and cars so popular and held in such esteem here ("Popular dudes that drank fifteen gallons of beer and drove at 120 mph in their supercharged roaster while reading their baseball cards and talking about the good old basketball college days"?) is actually all right and normal? that calling any aberrant behavior is just, like, your opinion, man?



    There's a reason all you tech loser programmers get stomped on by management, and there's a reason no one else in the world cares - because your childish maladjusted antisocial behavior are just that.


    Interesting that you believe that. I'm sure that some are, but are they "stomped on" any more than other professions? If so, why do you think so ? At many companies sales and marketing have a much higher turnover than technical...and management stomp on them very harshly if they don't meet their quotas/etc.



    I can't wait till there's a pill we can slip into the water so you techie morons will drop the pretention that anyone takes you seriously as human beings and just do what you're told



    Really, I would rather be a geek than a person with blinkers on who can't think out of the box, in fact, doesn't even realize that there is a box. But while I do want to feel sorry for you, I am finding it difficult considering your belligerant attitude.


    Peace,
    True Geek.
  132. DPT shot causes Autism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and its milder cousin Asperger's syndrome, If I remember correctly the research paper I read showed that neither Disease existed before we started giving children the DPT shot, and that symptoms can show up in as little as 24 hours after getting the shot. The conclusion was since these side effects were very rare, that the shot was to be considered very safe.

    1. Re:DPT shot causes Autism by bob_jenkins · · Score: 1

      The MMR shot (Measles-Mumps-Rubella), given at age 1 1/2. I have one such article on my desk. The Measles vaccine gives a rash and fever, the other two seem pretty reaction free. The theory was that one of the other two gets through some membranes it shouldn't due to reactions to the Measles, then triggered Autism. European studies show that if there is a correlation between MMR and Autism, the correlation isn't very strong. The shots can be given separately, as they had for decades before they were combined, at a slight expense to parents (and extra doctor visit for child).

    2. Re:DPT shot causes Autism by SLP · · Score: 1

      Please don't disseminate that kind of information before at least attempting to check it out first. And remember, whatever you THINK you read, it was only a STUDY. Nothing is proven only disproved. If you read the post earlier in this discussion, that person actually took the time to read different studies and gave details about a study that refuted the MMR link to autism.

  133. I doubt it by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    From the artical:

    but Asperger's syndrome wasn't included as a separate disorder until the fourth edition in 1994.

    Asperger's syndrom is only now beginning to be recognized. Of course it's going to seem to be 'on the upswing' because it's being detected more.

    I think you'll find higher concentrations in 'geeky' places, not only because parents with it will likely have kids with it, but also because geeks are more aware of it because they've heard 'geekyness = asperger's' etc. and would learn about it and be able to better diagnose it in their children.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  134. Stress can be a factor ... by Mayflower · · Score: 0

    This article has linked somewhat major stress during pregnancy to autism in children. To quote the article:
    Women who have had a major stressful event - death of a spouse, job loss, or a long-distance move - midway through their pregnancy may have a greater chance of having an autistic child than do their unstressed"
    I can see 'long-distance move' fitting into the california equasion. I wonder how many job offers still include paying for the house and moving the whole family. Newly wedds ... Pregnant with first child ... Job of a life time ... Who would have thought?

  135. Diet Coke and/or Cell phones cause... by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    migraine headaches, autistic births, and multiple sclerosis.

    Many reports suggest this claim.
    Of course makers of the products will say that they are harmless.
    I try not to consume either one.

  136. I'm Special! Give me a cookie! by Not+A+Democrat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is an entirely social problem that has very little (if anything at all) to do with genetics. Look at how it is diagnosed: you are diagnosed on a very vague scale of normalcy in several areas. If you're not normal, you're autistic.

    Well, guess what? If you don't know how to be normal, it's because you weren't ever taught to be normal. Even the autistic parents have an idea of normalcy, but if they lack the skills to teach normalcy to their kids, hello autistic children.

    Now, when is this most likely to happen? Well, let's say Christine is a poor child of one of these incompetent couples. She's six months old, and both her parents work twelve hour days while she stays in daycare. Level of human interaction? Approximately none. Time until she turns autistic? According to the article, eighteen months until her lack of taught normalcy outweighs the normal instinctive behaviour she is born with.

    When I went through college, I saw all the smart people. Most of them weren't attracted to "The Valley," maybe because they wanted to spend time with their girlfriends and wives, but of the dozens that I knew, only two of them were antisocial like that. And I can tell you that when I meet them today, their children don't have any problems, either. As for the other two, I haven't seen them in years, but I hear that Wilfred is in San Jose, and Norm is in Seattle.

    Really, this is just masturbation. Some of these people crave the attention that they can't get through normal human interactions like the rest of us have. Well, short of taking them away from their parents, there isn't much that can be done. Hi Christine! You're special, here's your stupid cookie.

    --

    Being Liberal should be a Crime!

  137. Could Stress in Silicon Valley Be The Cause? by vallee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pollution could be a factor, for sure, but it seems that we should also consider the possibility that Silicon Valley, with it's go-go-go lifestyle and stressful jobs, could be. Check out this article in Yahoo News describing a link between stress in the 24-28th weeks of pregnancy to Autism.

    -Paul

    --
    The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
  138. Aspergers/Autism and Genetics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My 8 year old son has Aspergers Syndrome. He has some of the characteristics of autism, but not others. He has many repetitive behaviours, such as asking the same question many many times, a rigid adherance to routine, and a fascination with sensory overload (such as Tide boxes...very bright and red). Other behaviours, he does not have, such as the social inhibitions. If anything, he is very social, much more so than my other 2 shy daughters and his shy parents. This is not to say that he can read social cues, though. He is always going to be an oddball, but he is a sweet, happy kid with some odd traits.

    I tend to believe the genetic explantion, but I acknowledge that there may be several explanations. I look at some of his behaviours and think of how I exhibit some of them. The Wired article suggests that it is linked to depression, which I know is inherited in my wife's family; my wife also has a cousin who is probably Aspergers.

    And I might add to the clueless poster who blamed autism on working parents is that my wife has been a stay-at-home mom...

  139. Asperger's on Life's Terms by Qwaniton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you need to know anything about Asperger's Syndrome, Get This Book. Tony Attwood is a genius, and nine months ago I had the pleasure of talking to him at a conference in Binghamton, NY (at the Heritage Country Club, the former IBM Country Club), and I kowtowed to him. Take it from me, because I have Asperger's syndrome. I program VCRs before I read the manuals, and read the manuals for FUN. My friend Ryan is a Pokémon Fanatic. I am a computer gamer and my best friend Andy is a nerd like no other, programming until his brain leaks out his ears. And I still don't get neurotypical girls. And if you're going to cure autistic persons, leave them with Asperger's syndrome. Please.

  140. Re: false representation of the logic involved by Kupek · · Score: 2

    You're missing an important link - the parent's occupations are effects, but another effect is that these two people met (due to similar interests/occupations), got married, and had a kid. If autisim/Aspeger's are in fact caused by genetics, and if both parents have some of those genes, their kids are more likely to have it as well. Hence, the effects of the parent's conditions became the cause of their child's.

  141. In breeding by matt_king · · Score: 0

    The relatively short time-span that we are talking about (past 60 years) is too short a time to discuss in-breeding. Studies have shown that problems with inbreeding only occur after many generations of close relatives breeding together. If you were to copulate with your brother/sister (your closest genetic link), you would not see a significant rise in abnormalities. It is only after repeating this cycle through multiple generations that certain genetic defects crop up.

    1. Re:In breeding by Marcus+Brody · · Score: 3, Informative

      I am *really* trying hard not to flame these days.... but:

      "Studies have shown that problems with inbreeding only occur after many generations of close relatives breeding together"

      That is patently bullshit. Please would you point me to the references for these "studies" and I will tear them up along with your post.

      OK, here goes. This is pointless, but I feel compelled to demolish you fallacy:

      There are thousands of single-gene "monogenic" disorders. A Good example is Cystic Fibrosis, although you could replace this in the example for countless diseases. Cystic fibrosis is a recessive disease. This means that you have two copies of the gene (called CFTR), and if both are "damaged" or mutated, you will have the disease. However, if you have only one mutated copy, you are just fine. In this case you are a "carrier" for CF - but you will probably never know it.

      Now let's take the example that you are a carrier for CF. About 1/20 people are carriers for a mutated CFTR gene, so this is not unlikely. Now, you have a 1/20 chance of marrying somebody who also is a carrier for CF. If you did marry someone who was a carrier, each child you give birth to will have a chance of having CF. Each child will have a 1/2 chance of inheriting your "bad" copy of the gene, and a 1/2 chance of inheriting your partners "bad" copy of the gene. 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4, so there would be a 1/4 chance of the child having full blown CF. So overall, you would have a 1/20 (chance of meeting somebody else with CF) x 1/4 chance of having a child with CF:

      = 1/20 x 1/4 = 1/80 chance of giving birth to a single CF child, if you are a carrier and marry a random individual.

      Now consider having a child with your sister [er... rather not - ed.]. She shares 50% of your genetic makeup. Therefore if you have a single mutated copy of the CF gene, she has a 1/2 chance of having that bad copy. Therefore:

      = 1/2 x 1/4 = 1/8 chance of giving birth to a single CF child if you are a carrier and have a child with your sister

      So, quite evidently, if you are a carrier for a "recessive monogenic" disorder, the chances of having an abnormal child are HUGELY increased with inbreeding - within a single generation. This same principal applies to other modes of inheritance and more complex traits - such as heart disease or diabetes. The maths is a little more complicated though. Furthermore, every person is a "carrier" for on average TWO inherited diseases. This seems like a lot, but just remember that the chances of meeting someone else who also happens to be a carrier for the same disease is very rare. Unless you happen to have sex with a relative. In which case, you are very likely to have an abnormal child.

      Despite what the twat above said, I seriously advise you *NOT* to start going out and making bacon with your auntie.

    2. Re:In breeding by d-e-w · · Score: 1, Informative
      There are thousands of single-gene "monogenic" disorders. A Good example is Cystic Fibrosis, although you could replace this in the example for countless diseases. Cystic fibrosis is a recessive disease. This means that you have two copies of the gene (called CFTR), and if both are "damaged" or mutated, you will have the disease. However, if you have only one mutated copy, you are just fine. In this case you are a "carrier" for CF - but you will probably never know it.

      There is also mounting evidence that some "monogenic" diseases offer protection to carriers (which is why they have not been breed out by natural selection.) The most commonly known one is the protection against malaria offered by the sickle cell genes. The body of a carrier of CF is better at retaining hydration than someone without a copy of the gene, which historically may have protected from death by disease-caused dehydration (which was a major concern up until the middle of the 20th centuary.) When two copies are brought together, it means bad things--but the single copy may be helpful.

      That tendency is a piece of knowledge that could also drive suspicions that these cases of autism are genetically-linked. For many years, studies have suggested that two parents of high intelligence tend to produce children of average intelligence. (Note tend.) An argument can be made for both environment causes and genetic causes. Here, this article suggests to me, and apparently to those who have decided to investigate, that two parents with a tendency towards mild "autistic" behaviors have a tendency to produce children who are diagnosed with full-blown autism. That suggests a link. Further studies are needed to prove or disprove the link--and that's basically what the article is saying. Both genetics and environment can produce tendencies, but studies are required to determine whether either (or both!) are to blame. Both can be under suspicion.

      This is especially true given that we're talking about autism, a disease that's not very well understood. Therapies that work for some children have no effect on others. There has been some suspicion recently that diseases with similar sympotms but different underlying causes may be lumped together under the heading of autism. (For example, last I heard, there were studies starting up to determine whether the lack of/malfunction of a particular digestive enzyme could be the underlying cause behind some cases of autism--for some children, a treatment which replaced that enzyme through injections has worked wonders while in other cases it hasn't had a damn bit of effect. That lack of effect in some caused the treatment's dismissal by some researchers; now some are wondering about the discrepency and looking at what, outside of parental illusion, might cause that.) Autism requires the type of research that this article suggests it is beginning to receive. The tendency to blame it on bad/detacted parenting during the 1970s and early 1980s severly hindered scientific investigation of other possible causes, and that has only begun to be remedied recently. It's rather sad that a clustering effect like this is what it takes to get this type of attention, but perhaps the clustering itself will give more insights into what particular causes can be. There are so many factors that can be brought under suspicion here. It may not be simply one factor which is causing this. But it may lead to the scientific identification of some factors in autism, which can help diagnosis and treatment. When you're talking about looking at genetics and environmental factors, it's not only the psychs which are involved any longer. It's scientific investigators as well.

    3. Re:In breeding by zhensel · · Score: 2

      "For many years, studies have suggested that two parents of high intelligence tend to produce children of average intelligence."

      And two parents of average intelligence would tend to produce children of average intelligence. Likewise, two parents of low intelligence would tend to produce children of average intelligence. There may be slight leans toward the upper or lower ranges of the intelligence spectrum, but there won't be any sweeping genetic relation between parental and child intelligence. You might have a few outliers, but on the whole you'll always end up with average intelligence as the average result.

    4. Re:In breeding by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      I have heard of cases of full-blown autism (Rainman or worse) being cured completely, if temporarily, by placing the individual in a hyperbaric chamber. Evidently the high air pressure "fixes" them.

      Just what the heck is that about??

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

  142. I learned something today by killmenow · · Score: 1

    First, it appears a majority of /. readers think they are geek-gods or otherwise super-intelligent...surprise, surprise.

    Second, contrary to popular opinion here on /., it appears what most /. readers suffer from is not Aspergers, Pervasive Development Disorder, Autism, ADHD, etc...rather, I believe they are mostly hypocondriacs.

  143. Balck into white by Kushana · · Score: 1

    "How much 'eye-to-eye gaze' do you have to have to be normal?" asks Lotspeich. "How do you define what 'marked' is? In shades of gray, when does black become white?"

    Well, duh. 128, 128, 128.
    --

    Careers should combine three things: what you can do, what you want to do, and what you can get paid for.
    1. Re:Balck into white by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only with a gamma of 1.0; otherwise it depends on the gamma curve.

  144. I'm somewhat skeptical by casmithva · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The article mentioned that the criteria used in diagnosis of autism is quite subjective. My wife is a school teacher in an inner-city neighborhood in southeast Washington, D.C. Four of the students in her 22 student class have been classified as autistic, and it's complete hooey. The common thread amongst those four students is that they essentially don't have any parents and no parenting. They're either being raised by grandparents who already have one foot in the nursing home, parents who are hooked on crack or other drugs, or parents who are working multiple jobs each to make ends meet; regardless, the end result is the same -- no parents, no parenting. My wife, who is a fun but strict teacher whom the kids all love, has noticed that a strict classroom environment, with clearly defined and enforced behavioral boundaries but also positive reinforcement and praise, can really help these supposedly autistic kids. One of them who has been in my wife's class now for four months has essentially undergone a complete behavioral change: whereas he used to be very disruptive, shy, and mal-adjusted and hated school, he is now very outgoing, obedient, and loves school.

    I've no doubt that some significant percentage of the new cases in California are legitimate. I do wonder, though, if a significant percentage of the remainder, though, are not autistic but are rather by-products of society's modern trend of blaming a child's behavioral or developmental problems on a psychological/mental disorder and doping him/her up on medication as a means of covering up our failures at being and unwillingness to be responsible parents.

    1. Re:I'm somewhat skeptical by bbqBrain · · Score: 1

      My wife...has noticed that a strict classroom environment, with clearly defined and enforced behavioral boundaries but also positive reinforcement and praise, can really help these supposedly autistic kids.

      These children aren't autistic. I will agree with the sentiment that doctors often over-diagnose learning disorders (to appease parents, I suppose), but there is little doubt that something serious is happening when a 2-year-old girl stops responding to her name entirely.

      My wife (enrolled in an elementary education program) works with autistic children, and the symptoms are very real. Two of them (sisters) are in a very attentive, loving home. The elder daughter is very bright and was making tremendous strides in her development until she suddenly began regressing. It's very sad for parents to see their child slipping away. Causes aren't certain, but it has been hypothesised that certain substances in a child's diet may trigger or at least aggravate the autistic condition. I know gluten (present in dairy products, wheat, and some other foods, I believe) has been fingered as a possible culprit, but I can't remember the others.

      --

      One of the reasons that I became a lawyer was to avoid ever having to hire one. -SPYvSPY
    2. Re:I'm somewhat skeptical by judd · · Score: 2

      You could also speculate whether professional couple who work in IT are more likely to spend insufficient time with their kids. 60 hour weeks, heavy reliance on daycare.., parents preoccupied when they _are_ home.

      Perhaps there is a correlation between certain behaviours, and the children of engineers - but it might not be genetic, it might be to do with the way those children are raised. (Or both, of course).

    3. Re:I'm somewhat skeptical by teromajusa · · Score: 1

      Alot of attention has been paid to the whole dietary thing, but studies have consistantly failed to find a connection. Some people swear by it though, claiming to have gotten all sorts of dramatic improvements.

    4. Re:I'm somewhat skeptical by bbqBrain · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's certainly tough to draw any conclusions in the absence of a controlled environment. Parents who care enough to implement a strictly gluten-free diet, for instance, are probably also providing extensive therapy for their children. One of my wife's "client" families has been doing this for a while. The child has made great strides in her therapy, but there's no way to tell what caused it. She's pretty bright to begin with and has a very dedicated ABA team and caring parents.

      Still, the family is, understandably, unwilling to abandon the gluten-free approach as it may have a positive effect and is doing no harm (other than making meal preparation a chore). In any case, it's a burden I don't wish on anyone.

      --

      One of the reasons that I became a lawyer was to avoid ever having to hire one. -SPYvSPY
    5. Re:I'm somewhat skeptical by rselph · · Score: 1

      That was originally refered to as the "refrigerator mother" theory of Autism. It has been COMPLETELY debunked by good, solid research. It is also, BTW pretty damn insulting to those who are raising Autisic children, and giving it their all.

    6. Re:I'm somewhat skeptical by rselph · · Score: 1
      a strict classroom environment, with clearly defined and enforced behavioral boundaries but also positive reinforcement and praise, can really help these supposedly autistic kids.

      Well, the best environment for a really autisic kid is, in fact, one with clearly defined boundaries and positive reforcement, etc.

      When an autistic person gets the care they need, in the right kind of environment, they can do quite well. That doesn't mean they're not autistic. It just means they are getting what they need.

      After all, if an epileptic gets the proper medication they very rarely have seizures. Would you say that that means they weren't "really" epileptic to begin with?

    7. Re:I'm somewhat skeptical by J.+J.+Ramsey · · Score: 1

      "My wife is a school teacher in an inner-city neighborhood in southeast Washington, D.C. Four of the students in her 22 student class have been classified as autistic, and it's complete hooey."

      "The common thread amongst those four students is that they essentially don't have any parents and no parenting. They're either being raised by grandparents who already have one foot in the nursing home, parents who are hooked on crack or other drugs, or parents who are working multiple jobs each to make ends meet"

      Um, that "common thread" that you described applies to a lot of kids in the inner city, and it probably applies to many of the kids in the class that were not diagnosed with autism. Now if you were talking about kids in the relatively rosier suburbs, that "common thread" might mean something.

    8. Re:I'm somewhat skeptical by haruharaharu · · Score: 2

      That was originally refered to as the "refrigerator mother" theory of Autism. It has been COMPLETELY debunked by good, solid research

      On the other hand, this could explain an increase in diagnosis. All the stuff i've seen implies that undersocialization or lack of parents can cause some of the same symptoms as autism.

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
  145. Upswing in Altruism? What else would you expect? by Erris · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    When you consider the strength of the free software movement and it's focus on comunity benifit, helping your neighbor and what not this is natural. Is it any wonder that children brought up thinking this way would do better than those with the strange and perverse model of squeezing as much money as possible over each closed source line of code?

    Oh wait, that's autism... Oh well, I suppose the press thinks anything that's not selfish is retarted. They will catch up one day.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  146. Asperger's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    isn't the best thing going. It was previously classified as "psychopathic disorder." To some extent, it involves a lack of concience. I've known someone with Asperger's, and she'd do outrageous things, and then be surprised by the results.

    Other fun facts:
    They can't catch anything.
    They often find sounds terribly oppressive, like clicking a pen.
    They're awkward.
    They can't read facial expressions.

    It's certainly a handicap in several ways.

  147. My personal experiences. by cecil36 · · Score: 1

    I remember my parents saying that I had a developmental disorder around age 2. Between that time until after the 4th grade, I was a part of some therapy program, including time spent going to my psychiatrist for a series of evaluations. It was recommended that I join the Boy Scouts, but even there, I was the target of bullying, even when I was the leader of my patrol. Since I could not handle it, I decided to quit, turning over the troop's scrapbook. From then on, the only thing I cared about, other than keeping my grades up, was my collection of video games. I did joing a bowling league, and did well there, but my passion was still with video games. One person who worked at the bowling alley and was a good friend of my grandmother mentioned that I will do something big, but I lacked the social skills needed to achieve some form of success.

    Fast forward to 1999. I was still heavily engrossed into the video games, but I made a decision to start up a second business to help pay for my college expenses. I was originally self-employed as a computer technician, but I started up a business referring people to shop online and earning commissions based on sales generated. This was a unique learning experience for me, especially for me fitting into the "geek" mold. I had a lot of work to do in order to become more people-oriented. A woman that I met through a business relationship offered to work with me in not only developing my business, but also in developing my social skills. Some of the most important books I have read were How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie, Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins, and Becoming A Person of Influence by John Maxwell and Jim Dornan. It was the input of positive information and encouragement, along with mentoring and coaching in the area of people skills that made me what I am today. My business has grown to include a major account with a nursing home that uses my services as a consultant for their employee recognition program.

    Today, I'm still a geek, but my "social engineering" skills have improved tremendously in the past 2 1/2 years. I'll still play my games, but my bigger focus is the concerns and needs of others.

    1. Re:My personal experiences. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outstanding. This is an important point.

      The social skills to manage Asperger's can be learned, with enough work (at least for those of us on the mild end of the spectrum).

  148. Some new disorders I've discoverd in my life. by jjn1056 · · Score: 1

    1. Stupid, drunken frat boy disease
    2. Rich boy syndrome
    3. Norm Malaise

    When will we have pills for intolerance and bullying?

    --
    Peace, or Not?
  149. My take on this by zaks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First, I would like to say that I've never doubted for a minute that geekyness exists. It is a set of behaviors, a non-standard view of the world, that's shared by a small, but not insignificant percentage of people, mostly men. While I do not know if geekyness ("Asperger's) is inborn or acquired in infancy, I AM sure of one thing: psychiatrists should be the last people on earth to be trusted with the answer, or even more frighteningly, the "treatment". Remember, this is a "science" that until quite recently advocated electric shocks, applied directly to the brain, as a way of treating schitzophrenia. I've actually known someone who survived this, and to my knowledge the morons who thought this up have never been punished in any socially accepted way. Once, out of curiosity, I actually tried looking up what their definition of "schitzophrenia" was. Guess what? It's all mush! Basically, if you're "crazy", you're a schirzophreniac to them. The brain is an incredibly complex structure, and like all such structures, it can fail in many complex ways. The only ones modern psychiatry is really sure of are direct and simple. Example: if a person gets hit in this area of the skull, their speech may get slurred. Hmmm, that is probably where the "speech" area is (I'm not joking).

    So if you're looking for science in psychiatry, you've come to the wrong place at the wrong time. This wouldn't be so tragic if they were not constantly insisting on "treating" innocent people like you and me. I could think of lots of scientific fields that are pure speculation. Cosmobiology sounds like fun for example. But there is no financial incentive that I know of to apply cosmobiology to real life. Unfortunately, there IS a financial incentive to "treating" crazy people. So the story of all quacks who've come before them gets repeated one more time, and "bad humours" become "chemical imbalances", "being posessed by the devil" becomes "schitzofrenia", and "exorcism" gets a direct charge out of the wall socket. The fact that these quacks have now set their sights on us (and even gave our condition a name) cannot be good news.

    1. Re:My take on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Full disclosure: I'm a retired M.D., so I may be a bit biased here, but...

      * I don't doubt that some people are inappropriately diagnosed with mental illness. Prozac and the like are, oddly, either overprescribed or underprescribed depending on local practice patterns. Still...
      * Some mental illness _can_ be traced to easily measured variables. I can assure you that it's not all quackery. You MAY find some science there. Really.
      * Electoconvulsive therapy (ECT, in the trade) has some legit uses. I'm not shitting you.
      * The brain is complex, but neurologists know how at least _some_ of it works. Dazzling, but true: There ARE areas of the brain associated with speech. There are speech disorders associated with strokes in those areas. Again, no shit.

      Please try to be more tolerant of mental illness and the fields associated with it. Psychiatry, psychology, et al. are way more objective than the alternatives (whose names I shall not mention).

  150. Interesting reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.dotoLearn.com has some interesting reading on how to help these kids. Small non-profit group trying to help by bringing software costs into the range that regular (non-rich) parents can buy it. Was a interesting backgrounder on the subject.

  151. Re:Every Excels in on area falls short in another by KingKire64 · · Score: 1
    An interesting point. Im BiPolar, and i find that alot of great ppl were bipolar also. Am i in their ranks, no.

    In order to get something great you generaly have to give up something. The only thing I very paranoid about is getting marryed to someone of my same situation. Bi polar is a genetic desease and the more genes that are affected the more likely that my child will have it, or even worse than i do. That is what I got from the article. With like minded individuals starting to group to gether and reproduce the gene pool isnt getting mixed around enough and what happens is the combined good traits sometimes get better and vice versa.

    Ive learned to live with my condition(sort of). And yes i look down on alot of the non mentally affected groups that dont understand my disease. But sometimes just sometimes... i wish i could be like them for a few days to not have to deal with the war in my head. Anyway off topic or not that is my story. There are two sides to every coin.

    --
    "All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
  152. Asperger's Syndrome by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    My youngest son has been diagnosed as having Asperger's syndrome by one of the top specialists in the world. Given that he has a very distinctive set of behaviours, I well believe it.

    1. His motor coordination is such that he has a very difficult time writing anything longer than a few sentences. The writing is nearly illegible.

    2. He has some social idiosycracies - judgement of other people's reactions is the most obvious.

    3. He has an extraordinary memory - near eidetic in quality. The scope of it is stunning - it covers phots, music, and text.

    4. He tends to focus narrowly on subjects.

    Taken individually these behaviours are not meaningful. But the package is quite compelling.

    Fortunately his main handicap is his handwriting which can be compensated for with a laptop. The talents plus his high native IQ are such that he is highly successful academically. So long as he gets the instruction he needs to compensate for his limitiations he will continue to be successful.

    What is distressing is to read idiots in this forum and elsewhere who try to claim that all such behaviours need is a structured classroom. Baloney. Without support the talents that people like my son can bring to society would be wasted because of the of the inefficiencies the uncompensated handicaps enforce.

    1. Re:Asperger's Syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should have offered your son a life instead of a laptop and the prospect of practitioning obscurantism behind a desk.

  153. The REAL Reason why there are more diseases today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trick answer: there are no more today. Years ago, non-viral diseases were considered to be demon posession. Conditions that were described on religious terms are now described with medical terms. Also, drug companies nowadays invent diseases. Pfizer sells the Sarafem drug as a spirit lifter for women. The medication is only a diluted form of prozac, nothing exotic. Ten years ago there were commercials on TV for heartburn, a condition that's been around for thousands of years. Nowadays, you never hear about heartburn, instead it's "acid reflux disease". New non-viral non-bacterial diseases? Bah humbug.

  154. amphetamine != caffeine by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

    This is a minor nitpick, really.
    Amphetamines like Ritalin displace norepinepherine and dopamine from the vesicles within neurons that store them, so that these two neurotransmitters flow into synapses more readily. Ritalin has a mechanism of action similar to any other amphetamine.
    Caffeine targets a completely different system entirely (it blocks adenosine receptors). Unlike Ritalin, caffeine is qualitatively different from the amphetamines with regard to things like dose response, habituation effects, etc.

  155. Microclusters by Baldrson · · Score: 2

    In 1996 a group of parents at a small start up company in Palo Alto all discovered their children were "autistic". I reported it to the Berkeley expert who was doing work on tracking cases at the time and he dismissed it. He said "microclusters" were known to occur but that their causes was unknown. I was pretty disgusted with his attitude.

  156. Exactly ! by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    Thanks for saying in a few words what I couldn't express in much more...

    Radiation + Chemicals (PcB is a motherboard component, carcinogenic AND DNA active)

    => Have fun, and wiggle the tentacles to say hello 8|

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  157. I am by glShemp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... 44 years old, have no friends or social life whatsoever, have never had a relationship and am diagnosed Aspergers. I answer the phone at a technology company and know more about the technology of our products then everyone else here put together. But I lack common sense which has greatly impeded my career. I don't know how to act around people. I am very effective in a one-way monologue (long-winded, pedantic speech) but completely uneffective in a two-way conversation. I spend almost all my free time playing computer games. I know there are a lot more Aspys (as we call ourselves) out there un-diagnosed who don't know that there is a clinical term for what they are - intelligent social misfits.

    1. Re:I am by Golias · · Score: 1
      I know there are a lot more Aspys (as we call ourselves) out there un-diagnosed who don't know that there is a clinical term for what they are - intelligent social misfits.

      Okay, first of all, "we"? I bet there are thousands of Asperger Syndrome cases out there who don't call themselves "Aspys". Nobody elected you as their spokesman.

      On to my main point...

      If you want to meet "intelligent social misfits", it ain't hard. Just go to your local Sci-Fi convention and you will see oodles of them.

      Personally, I think it is silly to deal with a syndrome that Bill Gates and many other multi-millionares "suffer" from as if it were a pathology that needs to be treated. There's probably at least as many "Aspys" out there as there are gays (with a remarkable ammount of overlap, if an informal poll at a typical sci-fi convention is anything to go on), and look at the stink the gays put up about being listed in the Merck manual as a psychological condition. It's like some people are in just as much of a rush to be classified as abnormal as gays have been to avoid it. Stop thinking of your lack of social skills as a disease, and just try to follow the advice of more socially clued-in people on things like hygene and politeness. Most people will just think of you as "kind of smart, but kind of quirky". Is that so bad?

      Parents: If you kid has Asperger's Syndrome, he will probably get picked on a lot while growing up, he might blow up your shed with his junior chemestry set, and he might never marry, but he also might someday buy you your dream home with the profits from his Death Ray invention. Accept your little freak for who he is, and get on with life. Nothing is wrong.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:I am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      incapable, dumbass.

  158. Please read - the importance of self-education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I am really compelled to get this out. Someone please mod this up, everyone truly needs to be aware of this.

    There are other serious possible factors to austism, ADD, and other illnesses. With self-education, you may be able to reduce the probability of these impacting your child.

    If you are having a child, or thinking of having one in the future, please, please do some SERIOUS self-education here, by starting with the book by Dr. Robert A. Bradley (The Bradley Method). The literature can be found at: http://www.bradleybirth.com

    Many midwives have noticed a VERY common correlation between certain illnesses (like Attention Deficit Disorder and Autism) and the use of the standard drugs which are given during childbirth.

    You will notice that autism wasn't recognized until the early 1940's (I.e. near the start of modern birthing procedures - and then simultaneously by two different Doctors in two different places).

    There has been no serious unbiased study of the long-term health effects of some of the drugs used during pregnancy, and such issues like autism or ADD. However, as I have said, many midwives have noticed such a correlation.

    Yes, this is anecdotal evidence. Yes, this is not scientifically studied. However, if you are going into childbirth expecting that the medical establishment will put the mother and child's health as their top priority, you are extremely sadly mistaken - at least in America.

    For example, the natural rate of having a Cesarean operation (C-section) was 5% for many decades (and still is that in some countries). But in the 1970's, this rate suddenly started climbing until at some hospitals, it is at 50 percent! While the factors for this haven't been definitely established (as far as I know) it may well have to do with the financial incentives provided by modern health care.

    In any case, I personally have found the information provided by the Bradley book to be extremely important.

    For the birth of our first child, we were clueless; and the only education was the "course" we took offered by the hospital. I see now that this was mostly geared to training us how to behave so that the hospital could manage us better.

    The outcome was an unnecessary C-section.

    For our second child, we did read far, far more reading - including the Bradley books. The key here is that we were *pro-active*, rather than passive.

    The second birth was almost identical; except that we used an experienced nurse-midwife. And there was no C-section needed. This is remarkable, because the medical establishment often claims "Once a C-section, always a C-section".

    And to be honest, I should add that the future parents we saw during the second hospital prep class all reminded me of sheep, waiting to be sheared. It was very sad, indeed.

    Again, please educate yourself. You can take control of the childbirth process. And the results may very well have a positive affect on the health of your child.

  159. The dangers of sociotism by Eugene+O'Neil · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sociotism is a mental disorder characterised by an undue obsession with social interaction and eye contact, which often interferes with healthy interests such as computer programming and science fiction.

    Sociotistic people often band together in tightly-knit heirarchies, where social status is determined by subtle shifts in "body language" rather than skill or experience. Sociotistic children often play cruel tricks on their healthier playmates for no logical reason. They prefer brutal team-oriented games like football over healthy, abstract tests of individual merit, such as video games.

    Victims of sociotism of all ages tend to be less intelligent than healthy people. They are capable of learning skills that have an obvious and immediate short-term benifit, but profoundly lack the social independance and intellectual curiosity needed to explore new frontiers of knowledge. As a result, sociotistic people rarely succeed in feilds such as science or engineering, and when they do succeed in these feilds it is usually only in a managerial capacity.

    If you know anyone that fits the description of a sociotistic person, please pat them on the head in a sympathetic but condecending manner and tell them to get professional help for their obvious deficiencies. With any luck, we will some day discover powerful mind-altering drugs that will force these people to be as healthy and well-adjusted as we are.

    1. Re:The dangers of sociotism by trixillion · · Score: 1

      Nice! Simultaneously funny and profound.

    2. Re:The dangers of sociotism by Untimely+Ripp'd · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      You make an amusing case, but the analogy can be picked apart in some important ways.

      For example, virtually ALL animals communicate using body language. Significantly, Aspies can't pick up the signals. They are deficient in this capability. One study discovered that they just don't pay any attention to a speaker's face. Trying to argue that there is something wrong with people who can both send and receive in multiple modes is a difficult stretch.

      Similarly, severe Aspies may seem more intelligent, but their intelligence often seems very constrained. They take a lot for granted in ways that are surprising for such "smart" people. A disproportionate number don't seem to comprehend that Ayn Rand is evil.

      They're also alienated from their bodies in ways that make it impossible for them to experience the kinds of physical pleasure that normal folk do.

      They also seem to be really bad spellers, but I think that may just be a problem with our education system. ("hierarchies", "benefit", "independence", "fields" "condescending")

      --

      And let the angel whom thou still hast serv'd tell thee ...

    3. Re:The dangers of sociotism by gatesh8r · · Score: 1

      Damnit! That's hillarious! But let this be something to show the world about "syndromes" -- we could make a diagnostic criteria for them also. Heck, why don't we make a mental illness for those who open M$TD's?

      --
      Karma whorin' since 1999
    4. Re:The dangers of sociotism by Eugene+O'Neil · · Score: 1


      For me, understanding people's facial expressions is a little bit like trying to understand what a monkey is thinking. I can forgive a monkey for not just telling me what they think, because they are physically and mentally incapable of speech. What is your excuse?

      Besides, normal people use body language to express ideas that are too ugly and selfish to say out loud. They say things like "I resent your being smarter than me" and "I want all your candy". I avoid looking at people's expressions because I learned long ago that I would not like what I see.

      It is hard for me to worry about how evil some dead author may have been, when George Bush is in the white house and the CIA is openly spying on US citizens.

      As for physical pleasure, I've had enough of it for my taste. Physical pleasures have natural limits: you can only have so much sex, and you can only eat so much ice cream, before you get sick of it. Intellectual pleasures never wear out. No matter where I am or what I am doing, all I need to do is think about computers and I am happy. I doubt most normal people, who seem to spend more time persuing happiness than experiencing it, can say the same thing.

      It is my observation that people criticise spelling when they have run out of real objections, but still want to say something nasty.

    5. Re:The dangers of sociotism by Untimely+Ripp'd · · Score: 1
      People use facial -- and other -- expressions constantly and often unconsciously. It is simply an information channel. Choosing to ignore it because you have some high-falutin' justification is a pretty minor vice, but probably not in your self-interest. The evidence, however, suggests that Aspies have broken receptors -- they can't properly process the signals, even if they care to.

      My excuse for using such cues as tone of voice (another problem for Aspies) and facial expression is the same as everybody else's -- it works. Especially when words alone fail to convey subtle nuance. Smileys weren't invented by frustrated morons, they were invented by high-functioning geeks who got tired of their text being misinterpreted -- typically, misinterpreted by Hymie-like Aspies who don't "get" irony and who are deaf to many other semantic subtleties of language.

      Intellectual pleasures do, in fact, begin to wear out, when you realize that you're usually hearing the same shtick again and again. As far as I can tell, ALL pleasures wear out. However, just as with the body language, we're not talking about folks who are tired of sex. We're talking about people who quite possibly weren't very interested in sex to begin with. More to the point, they've never been interested in most physical activity, and in particular, they're not interested in social physical activity.

      You may not want to worry about a dead writer, but since her work is supposedly Alan Greenspan's chief philosophical inspiration, perhaps you should be.

      I rarely criticize spelling, since I don't actually think it's very important. I used to work for a borderline Aspie (whose son is autistic) who couldn't spell worth a damn. He was also an extraordinary genius -- you have seen some of his work, though you probably don't know his name (few do). I save spelling criticism for people who seem a little too smug about their own intellectual accomplishments.

      --

      And let the angel whom thou still hast serv'd tell thee ...

  160. My crackpot theory . . . by Katharine · · Score: 1

    If you read the article carefully, you will learn that although there appear to be more cases of autistic children born to "techie" parents, autism is on the rise across the board-- including autistic children born to artists, social workers, ministers, etc.

    My theory about this is that American mothers just aren't getting enough toxins in their diet during pregnancy. :-) After all, through most of recorded history the water was too dangerous to drink and people (including children) drank weak beer or wine with every meal. You can bet that George Washington's mother drank during pregnancy, as did Voltaire's mother, and just about everyone up into very recent history. Have you talked to a pregnant woman lately about the stuff they aren't supposed to have, which pregnant women have been consuming with moderation for thousands of years? Not so much as a single cup of tea! (Hum, what about all those people in Asia who turn out just fine?)

    Perhaps there is a correspondence between these strict dietary guidelines and the uprise in autism. Maybe the real cause here is all those seriously caffeine-addicted techie moms suffering caffeine withdrawal in early pregnancy . . . .

    --Katharine

  161. Treatment + how YOU can help by bbqBrain · · Score: 1

    There are far too many misconceptions to address in this topic, but I'd like to at least mention what "treatment" of autism and Asperger's means. First of all, there are no drugs used to "cure" autism. The most effective treatment with which I'm familiar is Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy. My wife works as an ABA therapist for two little girls, both less than 3 years old. The therapy consists of many short exercises which focus on motor imitation, puzzle-solving, speech, etc. Therapy sessions are typically one to three hours long and pretty grueling, actually. Exercises are performed in groups of three or so, and short breaks are taken in between these groups.

    There is some very good information available on the web, of course. Here's a pretty useful site I found via Google:

    http://rsaffran.tripod.com/aba.html

    Anyway, due to the sheer number of exercises, data logging and therapy administration become quite a chore--you should see the stacks of paper and manual labor required for tracking a child's progress. AFAIK, the best tool most parents and therapists have at the moment is a spreadsheet. For this reason, I've been considering developing a Java app (likely web-based) to make these tasks more efficient. The software would obviously be Free.

    The project is still in its infancy (the scope hasn't even been defined), but if you're interested at all in coding or being notified once something is available for testing/use, feel free to email me at:

    steveh @ amnesiac.net (remove spaces)

    --

    One of the reasons that I became a lawyer was to avoid ever having to hire one. -SPYvSPY
    1. Re:Treatment + how YOU can help by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      Of course there's no cure, it's a syndrome. But, drugs can be used to minimize symptoms of some (perhaps all) forms of autism so the person can operate on a more 'normal' (higher social?) level.

      -

    2. Re:Treatment + how YOU can help by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      IMHO, the most alarming thing about autism in general is that treatment and information is aimed 99% at how to treat and deal with autistic children. Adult information and treatment resources are almost non-existant. When these children grow to be adults they will simply be cast out of the treatment/information arena unless they have severe autism simply for being adult even when there is no cure. Sure, by that time they may learn to emulate and run scripts, but the challenges will be no less than what children face, and those challenges will be very different.

      -

    3. Re:Treatment + how YOU can help by bbqBrain · · Score: 1

      Actually, the goal of Applied Behavior Analysis is to get the child functioning as a neurotypical person. Many children, of course, will never make it there, but most benefit at least somewhat. Fortunately, one little girl my wife works with is on track to begin kindergarten just like any other kid in a couple years. A year ago, she wasn't even responding to her name anymore.

      It is troublesome, though, that the kids who can't make a full recovery may receive less and less support as they grow.

      --

      One of the reasons that I became a lawyer was to avoid ever having to hire one. -SPYvSPY
    4. Re:Treatment + how YOU can help by Megahurts · · Score: 1

      I've read that extremely large doses of vitamin B can actually help to crack the shell that most autistics live in.

  162. Being different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seems to be like everyone wants to be different, or special. Be it something as heavy as claiming a mental illness, or the more mundane laments that their sense of humor or personality is "crazy." And yet, despite the claimed preference for being abnormal, people really only deviate from "normal" behavior by unremarkable amounts.
    The funny thing is, people *really do* have differences, but they hide them. Be it liking to stand in the rain, suck someone's feet, or eat glue. Most people have one or two genuinely odd traits that they closet.

  163. Umm... No by TFloore · · Score: 1

    A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Lazarus Long

    That says it pretty well... along with other comments in here about Feynman and other well balanced intelligent people.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
  164. People ... by Aceticon · · Score: 2
    ... are WAY more complex than machines.

    That's the great thing about people: The most complex machine you can come up with can be divided into a set of simple components and thus understood - people cannot be understood by analysing each part individualy (plus dividing people into individual components is against the law and considered bad manners).

    I love machines, and i can figure out really fast how to work most of them, but the REALLY BIG CHALLENGE is to figure out people and The bigger the challenge the bigger the pleasure of success

  165. Vaccinations by dudeX · · Score: 1

    Considering that most techies are well educated and usually well paid, it follows that their children will get the basic vaccinations. Many people (professionals like pediatricians, and physicians) believe that the vaccinations are the cause of the rise of autism. Some believe that the mercury in the vaccine is poisoning the children, while others may think it has to do with using live cultures to vaccinate versus a dead or weakend form of the bacteria/virus.

  166. Doesn't this sound like Vinge's "Focus"? by ab762 · · Score: 1

    In Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky there's an artificially induced state called "Focus" that sounds astonishing like some parts of this.

  167. Adequate Nutrition Corrects Most Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    These disorders are usually misdiagnosed.

    Give most kids a healthy dose of minerals (especially magnesium and calcium), some mega multivitamins(not the crappy "1-A-Day" candy animal variety), and one night's quiet rest and in one day you'll have healthier, better-focused, and attentive child.

    Surprising that, in all this discussion(the article and /. both), no one has paid attention to the most fundamental of factors contributing to behavior, namely nutrition!

    1. Re:Adequate Nutrition Corrects Most Problems by digaman · · Score: 1
      > Give most kids a healthy dose of minerals (especially magnesium and calcium), some mega multivitamins(not the crappy "1-A-Day" candy animal variety), and one night's quiet rest and in one day you'll have healthier, better-focused, and attentive child.

      This may be true, but considering the fact that many parents of autistic children spend decades trying every nutritional strategy in the book (or, should I say, the dozens of books) to alleviate their children's suffering and symptoms, a cavalier attitude of "give these kids some vitamins" is not going to be the answer for parents of profoundly affected children.

      Parents of autistic kids are one of the best informed and thoroughly-networked communities out there about issues that affect the health of their kids, such as nutrition -- at least those who can afford computers. There are also a lot of quacks out there. Raising awareness about the extent of the problem, and some "cures" that don't work, can't hurt.

    2. Re:Adequate Nutrition Corrects Most Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem: not enough ketchup in the diet. One needs sufficient ketchup in his life.

    3. Re:Adequate Nutrition Corrects Most Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I disagree on several points. First some clarification:

      I. There's nothing cavalier about it: name-calling adds heat and no light to the discusssion.

      II. It is patently obvious that parents of autistic children don't have decades to try nutritional strategies, since by then their kids are grown and gone.

      On to more germane points:

      III. Most parents, including parents of autistic kids, listen only to their doctors (if they listen at all). Unfortunately both parents and doctors today remain sadly uninformed about nutrition. Parents view nutritionists who suggest minerals or supplements in much the same light as they view strangers offering their kids candy. I can only chalk this up to human behavior and the fact that every parent believes that he/she knows what's best for their kids, despite the great evidence to the contrary and the fact that most parents have only their own childhood experience to guide them.

      IV. Such disorders are overdiagnosed: there are undoubtedly a very small number of children who truly have some unknown disorder(s) and who have been labelled as having "autism", "ADD", etc., but they are a small number. The vast majority are kids with nutritional problems or improper socialization who unfortunately also have uninformed parents, teachers and doctors.

      V. A small but important detail: it's both vitamins *and* minerals. In fact, given the symptoms, I'd put them in reverse order in significance.

  168. Doesn't surprise me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many "geeks" do you know that DON'T have obsessive-compulsive disorder, Tourette's, ADD, autism, or another neurological/psychological disorder?

    Yeah. I know. *you* sure don't. You just prefer the company of your computer to real humans because it understands you. Yeah, sure.

    1. Re:Doesn't surprise me. by ndlxs · · Score: 1

      Tony Atwood, the Aspergers expert mentioned elsewhere in this thread, says in his personal appearances that when they go to a new college to speak, they go to the library and try and pick out those with Aspergers. Then they go to the Engineering Department and try and pick out those WITHOUT Aspergers...

      --
      Andy Alexis Buy my CD: http://www.pineycreekweasels.net/cds.html Sacramento, CA. "The Pearl of the Central Valley"
  169. Dune Mentats by Canadian · · Score: 1

    Maybe we have to promote these ultra-calculating
    human minds to eventually assist in the coming
    AI wars.

  170. What it is like as a parent by randall_burns · · Score: 1
    This thread was pointed out to me by a former co-worker. I am the parent of a nine year old autistic child. Autistic in this case means he has no useful vocabulary and some behavior problems-and it has taken enormous work (with a stay-at-home mom) to keep him at home.


    A few facts here:


    My son was a part of a cluster in Silicon Valley. I was working at a company with around 100 employees about there were about 10 small children. Four of these children had autism diagnosis. I've tried to get the interest of a researcher on this-but I've never been able to do so.


    The range of scientific theory of autism is _much_ more complex than the discussion here would indicate- it is also a politically charged topic(i.e. even folks as prominent as Hugh Fudenberg, M.D.-at one time one of the 10 most cited researchers in the medical literature- have been crucified for suggesting a link between vaccines and autism).


    As far as the genetics issues: I have personally seen pairs of identical twins that differed markedly in their degree of autistic symptoms. When looking at the parents, I've noticed that there are two camps 1) folks that have a family history of autism and have kids that are like those described in the older literature 2) Kids that have no family history of autism and are much more social than those described in the older literature.


    I've seen figures that claim about 70% of all autistic children are the type A blood type-it appears rather unlikely that the disease is evenly distributed accross all ethnic groups.

  171. Remember your humility by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

    Remember your humility, for it is but a few baes pairs that seperate genius and insanity.

    It is only a few base pairs that make the difference between one who works so hard he forgets to bath, and one who cannot bath themself at all.

    It is only a few base pairs that has given you the live you lead and not th life of another, a life full of sorrow and pain.

    Remember your humility. I always do my best to remember mine, I setup computers for special ed classes and help then with the minimal funding that they get for computers.

    I have heard many of the special ed teachers say that even their Autistic students seem to enjoy doing things on the computer, and that the few setps of progress made seem to be taken in that electronic world.

    Sad that so little funding is given to special ed departments. A local school was happy when they recieved $2000 two years ago for computers.

    THe jewelery class (beads and such) got $6000 worth of iMacs.

    Donate your time, energy, and efforts towards helping childern with special needs.

    Not because you may need to use such resources one day when you have a family of your own, But because it is the right thing to do.

    1. Re:Remember your humility by bbqBrain · · Score: 1
      (Com2Kid, I was going to email you, but your address was unavailable on slashdot.)

      As mentioned in a post above ("Treatment + how YOU can help"), I'm attempting to do something similar from a different angle--developing software to help parents manage therapy for their autistic children.

      I would like to eventually be able to deploy the system on inexpensive boxes in people's homes. Have you had any luck getting computers donated to your "clients" by companies, individuals, etc? I'm also considering hosting the application for a small fee (just enough to cover hardware costs), which would provide convenient access for the therapy team members, but
      1. I predict that such a system would become very popular very quickly (many of these parents partake in online discussions), increasing load on the system.
      2. I would feel absolutely awful if a system failure caused the loss of all that therapy data.
      This means I'd need a robust RAID setup, perhaps load balancing, etc., driving up my cost for running the system and, therefore, driving up access fees. These parents have enough to worry about just getting their children to express basic sensations like hunger. They certainly don't need to be shelling out a bunch of cash every month for this tool.

      Any ideas? Should I be asking my state of residence (MO) or some federal agency for a grant? I don't even know where to begin, so any help would be appreciated.
      --

      One of the reasons that I became a lawyer was to avoid ever having to hire one. -SPYvSPY
    2. Re:Remember your humility by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      I mostly work in a low income area, so reliability is not a factor so much as getting equipment that is better then 486s deployed in schools and houses.

      (yes, I just said 486s. In High Schools. Some fools in the higher up insist on spending money on iMacs and such so intsead of ~$700 a pop computers are costing ~$2000 a pop, ugh!)

      Teachers have noticed that Autistic students do far better with computers, but getting ACCESS to those computers (the special ed department got $2000. . . . 3 years ago, for computer purchases. Unfortunately they did not have any idea about where to purchase computers from cheaply and ended up buying a Dell system. ) is the hard part.

      Getting involved and talking to the teachers helps alot, typicaly people are willing to either 'bend' the rules a bit or agree to using 'alternative' operating systems if they can just get access to a computer at all!!!

      Because the 'officals' higher up typicaly do not care what special ed departments are doing (or have to go through. . . . . ) Special Ed departments can get away with alot of stuff (such as being seperate from any 'offical' networks or such. Yes you lose internet access, but you also don't have to store stuff on unreliable quirky district hardware, bleh!).

      Always remember that performance comes AFTER price. Performance, price, reliability, pick 2, as the saying goes.

      For general workstations, a Duron 700 ($29 pricewatch) is plenty, and it really is sad that more K7 motherboards do not have integrated video. As it is Integrated Sound is fine, and an Integrated RAID controler gives you reliability at a lower price then an add-on card, with a performance trade-off. Thankfuly this is just what you are looking for.

      If you are going for a networked setup, I actualy saw a VERY nifty one in use awhile back.

      Every time the computers where booted they had a computer HD image installed to them from a centeral server. NOTHING could _EVER_ be done to the computers (aside from direct physical manipulation) to mess it up, that a reboot would not fix.

      Great system if you can manage it. Not to mention afford it, Novel Netware for booting, OS was Win98. Great for the enviroment it was in though.

      Ultra small HDs in a RAID setup is probebly your best bet. Go for software RAID if absolutly neccisary, if data reliability is HIGH HIGH _HIGH_ up on your list use all the data backup methods shoved together at once. A tape drive off in some corner that on a weekly basis also automaticaly backs up all data would be nice too, though not neccisary.

      As far as the system goes, I aim my price point at around $500(USD) or so. Of course based on a specific students needs, this price can go up dramaticaly, and it does not include the price of Speakers or a monitor. (typicaly I am in a situation where monitors are literaly lying around on the floor, cruddy though they may be.)

      Put a call out for HD though, alot of companies will be MORE then unhappy to unload their p133s onto you.

      Which have nice 2GB hds or so in them. }:)

      Not to mention the free keyboards + mice. You'd be amazed how easily those are forgotten. (Hey, uh, did we just order 30 systems and forget to buy keyboards? OH SHIT!!!! DOH! I have Actualy seen that happen, hehe. :o )

      The local goverment is likely going to be useless. Solicite them if you can, if your need is great enough. . . . . THere are also various organizations out there that have a LITTLE bit of money to give away, but computers for special ed students is not a very popular cause amongst many people. :(

      Summary:

      Go with small HDs (donated perferably) in an IDE RAID setup.

      Scrounge up neccisary Keyboards + Mice.

      Do NOT pay more then $500 for your base parts. Perferably less. I saw a 700mhz Duron Bare Bones (Case, Powersupply, MoBo, CPU, RAM) for around $300 recently.

      3d features on the SC do not matter. For computers used for display purposes, go for Matrox, otherwise go for whatever is cheapest.

      Don't make the mistake of buying TOO low quality, Bad Shit Happens then. Especialy when others are looking up to you. (Hey, That brand worked alright on my 15 boxen at home! /So what? Don't work worth a shit here!/)

      Monitors are a tricky issue. Even buying cheap ones, they are almost half the cost of a system. Obviously bigger == better, even more so when you are dealing with students whose attention you NEED to grab. (then again, big bright visuals grab anybodies attention.)

      If you are lucky enough to get an actual budget (Woh! You lucky dog. ;) ) then I say concentrate on the monitors.

      Self assemble (or get a local H.S. tech class to do it for ya, at least one student in there should be able to plug Red Wire into Red Hole. :) ) to save up to a few hundred per box.

      My e-mail should be shown now (hmm, should've been shown before. ^_^ it used to be, when you where able to have 2 different emails, one for /, to know, another that was 'shown'. BLeh) but since ATT@HOME switched to ATTBI it is only checked once every other day now. I do check it though.

      Pardon the Piss Poor nature of the message, my brain is REALLY f*cked up right now, been working on Artsy stuff WAY to much lately. (help, 16 hours doing creative work makes my head hurt!)

  172. Dude everyone gets depressed by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

    What kinda question is that? And now everyone who gets depressed gets suicidally depressed, just a few.

    Just like only a few people who are anti social actually have a REAL problem (IE they cant talk or communicate at all}

    Mike Tyson if he took anger management wouldnt be a world champion boxer and would prolly still end up in prison for rape

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  173. An Alternative Genetic Hypothesis by Baldrson · · Score: 2
    That's not to say that geeks, even autistic ones, are attracted only to other geeks. Compensatory unions of opposites also thrive along the continuum, and in the last 10 years, geekitude has become sexy and associated with financial success. The lone-wolf programmer may be the research director of a major company, managing the back end of an IT empire at a comfortable remove from the actual clients. Says Bryna Siegel, author of The World of the Autistic Child and director of the PDD clinic at UCSF, "In another historical time, these men would have become monks, developing new ink for early printing presses. Suddenly they're making $150,000 a year with stock options. They're reproducing at a much higher rate."

    It's more like the last 4 years, not the last 10 years, that "geekitude has become sexy and associated with financial success" and that only lasted for a few years.

    I have an alternative genetic hypothesis, and the chutzpah to put it forth, which most people wouldn't, even though it has more evidence to support it than Byrna Siegel's. The Wired article also reports:

    In the past decade, there has been a significant surge in the number of kids diagnosed with autism throughout California... Through the '90s, cases tripled in California. "Anyone who says this is due to better diagnostics has his head in the sand."

    California is not alone. Rates of both classic autism and Asperger's syndrome are going up all over the world, which is certainly cause for alarm and for the urgent mobilization of research. Autism was once considered a very rare disorder, occurring in one out of every 10,000 births. Now it's understood to be much more common - perhaps 20 times more. But according to local authorities, the picture in California is particularly bleak in Santa Clara County.

    What genetic change has occured in Santa Clara more than in California, in California more than in the rest of the world, and in the rest of the world more than other times in history over the last decade?

    Immigration and high degrees of integration among populations that have undergone very little coevolution.

    For the relevance of immigration to the potential etiology of autism-related diseases one need only look at the impact of global transport on ecosystem mixing the world over. The fact that male infants are the primary victims of autism should point to intraspecific ecological competition since, particularly in terrestrial vertebrates, males are the primary gender within which direct intraspecific competition occurs. Indeed, when we look for the physically verifiable signs of autism, we find the brain organ most clearly affected is the amygdala -- the most primitive aspect of the mammalian brain -- most directly involved in pheromonal communication -- most directly linked to the testicles by virtue of the fact that it shrinks by almost 30% upon castration in males, something that occurs in no other neuronal structure.

    Furthermore, the primary increases in autism are most observable among the more stereotypically genetically recessive populations. This points to the potential mechanism being some form of extended phenotypic genetic dominance whose manifesation is intraspecific parasitic castration.

  174. disease or evolution? by small_dick · · Score: 2

    if you pay a kid three dollars to dress funny at school, who are the sick people and who is healthy?

    in the simplest analysis, the kid is three dollars richer, and the kids who attacked him did it because he is different--in other words, they have sadistic impulses.

    maybe these people are the product of evolution--a new breed that values simple logic and deep thought over social hierarchies and base cruelty.

    --


    Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
    See my user info for links.
    1. Re:disease or evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a *big* hole in that line of reasoning.

      You're supposing that simple logic and deep thought are separate from social hierarchies and base cruelty. If you just look around for a moment, it's readily apparent that the opposite is true. Kissinger's "simple logic" has caused more harm to beings of this planet than any programmer has been able to code away. As for deep thought, one simply has to see the way intellectuals of this country prostitute themselves in service to the State to realize that "deep thought" is often synonomous with "rigid social structure" (which suits Aspys just fine, because they don't like a change in routine.)

      Even so, how can you say that an autistic person values *anything*? If they are as different as you suggest, then they are literally beyond your ability to comprehend them--their 4-D world can't be logically mapped into your/our 3-D one; there is no frame of reference for you to make any judgment on their impulses.

      No, what that article basically comes down to is the ever-inventive exploitative machine that "functions" as modern society has merely found a way to congratulate itself for the promotion of soulless engineers (who march lockstep in their little micro-worlds but manage enough lucidity to interface with this one) into the social sphere for the sake of profit.

    2. Re:disease or evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you're postulating anything particularly more insightful than my off-the-cuff analysis.

      Base cruelty and social hierarchy are animal derived. If you really require some type of heavy proof of this, I don't know what to say. It's kind of asking for a heavy proof of inalienable rights. Some people take things as obvious, and other cannot see things as well. The library is full of books regarding the Ascent of Man, not much to say about it here.

      You are supposing that a child, offered some few dollars by the attacking pack, has something wrong with him for naively accepting the money and performing the task. Who is to say that in a more advanced social system, his action was the proper one, and the antagonists are the sick ones?

      Your argument of the intellectuals prostituting their former ideals in order to retain their tenuous positions in the New World Order has a lot of merit--in another discussion. Seems like too global a theory, affecting nearly every walk of life, to draw much of a thread to this mere symptom of the much larger problem.

      I suspect I work with several Autistic people -- and perhaps I have a tinge of it myself. I can say, without hesitation, that there are things *I* value, even though I am, at times, walled in the fortress the "disease" imposes. One of my former associates worked extensively with severely autistic people, and she was brought to tears on many occasions when they would suddenly reveal their gentleness and artisanship.

      If your last statement is true--that social enginering is being used to keep us from another, and force us to breed highly intelligent, functional austisics--all I can say is the controllers better watch out. One day these creatures could well create a abberation--a highly social, incredibly intelligent politician.

      That should stir things up a bit.

  175. FUD by 3am · · Score: 2

    FUD, FUD FUD FUD... FUD!

    Un-f*cking-believable this was modded up to 4.

    I should have posted that flouride in tap water was causing stuttering. Or that cel phones cause schizoprenia. Perhaps I could've gotten some cheap karma.

    --

    A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
  176. wait a minute by btellier · · Score: 2

    is the suprising revelation that there are more children with autism or that programmers are having children?

  177. a few facts by xah · · Score: 2, Informative
    Let's have some facts. Just about everything below is a quotation from the noted web sites.

    Asperger Syndrome - Asperger Syndrome is a form of Autism, a condition that affects the way a person communicates and relates to others. However people with Asperger Syndrome are usually of average or above average intelligence, (unlike those with Autism). It is sometimes known as 'high functioning Autism'. It causes difficulties in the way a person relates to other people, socializes and forms relationships, amongst other things. (LINK) .

    Autism -- a condition characterized by an inability to relate to people. The incidence of the condition is about 2 in every 10,000 live births. Autistic infants do not cuddle and do not like to be picked up. They prefer to be left alone and are intolerant of change in their environment. Autistic children may respond with tantrums to such changes as the rearrangement of furniture or toys. Many autistic children are mute; in others, the development of speech is severely restricted to a repetition of a few words. Physical development is normal. Initially believed to be a consequence of poor parenting, it is now recognized as a neurological disorder. Some autistic children improve spontaneously. Others respond to a specialized plan of treatment. However, less than 25 percent of autistic children get better. Over half of all autistic children require residential placement by the end of adolescence. (LINK) . There is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. (LINK) .

    Selective Mutism -- (formerly called Elective Mutism) is a psychiatric disorder that is characterized by consistent failure to speak in SELECT social settings in which there is an expectation to speak; such as school. (LINK) (warning: sub-par HTML). The crucial diagnostic element is that the child has the ability to both comprehend spoken language and to speak, but fails to do so in select settings. These children will display reasonably appropriate verbal and interactive skills at home in the presence of a few individuals with whom they feel at ease. The term Selective Mutism should separate individuals who demonstrate a selectivity with whom they speak from individuals who speak to no one. A population which should be excluded are immigrants who speak another language, have no history of the disorder, and experience SM for a short period of time. In these cases the mutism is usually transient. (LINK) . The cause or causes of selective mutism is unknown. (LINK) . Selective mutism is sharply different from autism. (LINK) .

    If you believe you or a child has a problem, a good place to start is with a medical doctor. Don't rely on the information I provide. I do not vouch for the accuracy of any of this.

    --
    I am not a lawyer. Do not take my words as legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney.
    1. Re:a few facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree the best place to start is with a doctor. However something to start with right away is to get the child off of dairy products. There has been correlation between dairy products mainly cows milk and some forms of autism. Studies have also found that once millk is added to the diet babies and toddlers can develope signs of autism, and removing them from the diet the signs can actually start to go away.

      Again I don't think that there is absolute proof, nor is it the same for everyone. But it doesn't hurt. Try soya based products. Other things to watch for are other allergyns, like peanuts.

      D.

  178. Semiconductor Pollution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Semiconductor production pumps out an incredible amount of chemicals. I'd look to see if other kids are becoming autistic or maybe the pollution mixed with engineering children produces autistics but I don't doubt for a minute it's pollution from factories.

  179. But genes are complex. by HiThere · · Score: 2

    It's quite possible to select for divergent HLA's, and still reinforce genes that were at a low level of frequency in the distributed population, but have been concentrated in a profession.

    OTOH, I'm not sure just how quickly such an effect would work. But, again, the severe autism cases don't seem to be increased as much as the minor ones (though that is likely a matter of observation and definition).

    It is undeniable that we are being selected to live as an urban species. And that this wasn't true even as recently as 150 years ago. (Perhaps more recently.) But now most people live in cities, rather than on farms. It is undeniable that we are being selected on the basis of ability to be employed. And, also, it is undeniable that we are being selected on the basis of social skills.

    When you have this kind of multiple selection pressure, there can be more than one mode that is being selected for. It is quite plausible that the lawyers, the politicians, the techies, etc. are distinct social groups that have different genetic frequencies. But it would take a rather long time, even given punctured equilibrium theory, for this to result in separated species. And the rate of technical progress, including computer skills, but also including molecular biology, etc. can be expected to render this moot before it ever leads anywhere.

    I expect Utopia or Oblivion before 2030, plus or minus. What future do you want to live in? How do you get there from here? What are you doing about it? ... these are the important questions. Unless something of higher precedence demands action NOW.
    .

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  180. This is not AUTISM but it IS ADHD; Hypothesis by lerici · · Score: 1


    This syndrome is not uncommon and is mostly common in the US and not overseas. And so naturally, people immediately jump to the conclusion that these are "spoiled kids", resulting from "poor parenting". This is likely why so many people with this anomoly end up as criminals pursued by our system of justice. Hitler's had this idea that these people are genetic defects which need to be "culled" from the gene pool. Ironic given that he likely suffered from ADHD, and also suffered from Parkinson's disease.

    Medical science HAS proven that ADHD exists not as a psychosis but as a physical and biological reality through the use of PETSCANS. They found that there are many different flavors if you will. Autism, irritble bowel syndrome, and their like now fall under its much larger umbrella. One way to think of it is not as a specific ailment, but as a family of closely related mild brain disorders. Its population akin to the relatively rare but not uncommon sickle cell disease.

    Sickle cell anemia apparently has a purpose. All those who suffer from it are highly unlikely to ever contract Malaria.

    So, then perhaps there is a reason for this "trend" of Autism/ADHD. Perhaps Hitler and his cronies had the right notion; unfortunately his glass was mostly empty.. not even half full.

    Let's assume that nature does not stand still. Let's assume that homosapien sapien is not the end of the evolutionary cycle for our species. If our species began to evolve what would we observe? As in the past there would be "missing links", people might appear with differences, anomolies representing intermediate steps in evolution. You know sort of like those Learning Channel dinosaur documentaries. Suppose ADHD, (autism and all the related disorders) are characteristics of this intermediate step? Perhaps the brain is evolving, but it isn't not quite there yet. That would mean that people with these characteristics are not abnormal and its just nature following the "blueprint". So, perhaps one view might be that the glass is half full, perhaps even 3/4 full?
    Isn't that what one might expect when intelligent people, likely sufferers of ADHD, mate and have children?

    It seems to me the real problem is that society has never been flexible or mutable enought to keep up with nature's surprises. It may have improved, but people still won't accept change easily. Differences, even in a country whose guiding principles are based upon respecting and even celebrating those differences, are still things more to be feared than accepted.

    Now, getting back to why this country more than most seems to have more occurrences of these disorders. Some scientists postulate that there is a type of person designated type "T" who would be to leave behind the familiar surroundings of their homelands for the strange, perilous unknown of a new country. People who are impulsive, who are easily bored, distracted. They are not always the most popular person in the neighborhood or villagebecause they too often speak their mind without realizing how that might be perceived by their peers. These are likely people with ADHD. One may recall how enamored the mountain men were with the "high lonesome" far from people and the distractions they imposed. It would therefore seem that Silicon Valley engineers may only be "emulating" the mountain men of a bygone era.

    With the knowledge of the symptoms associated with ADHD in hand one might read about the lives of men like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and so many other "founders" and come to the realization that these men, like many others who came to these shores, were decidely different because their forebears were type "T"'s.

    It is thought that both Winston Churchill and Albert Einstein suffered as a result of this disorder.

    One other country which seemingly shares a relative abundance of these "differences" is Australia, a country basically founded by "criminals". Outcasts. It is said that if adaptations are not found for the problems associated with this genetic anomoly a life as a criminal and outcast is highly likely.

    Here are some of the variations of ADHD identified by PETSCAN:

    1. Classic ADD
    2. Inattentive ADD
    3. Overfocused ADD
    4. Temporal Lobe ADD
    5. Limbic ADD
    6. "Ring of Fire" ADD

    It is possible to have multiple variations at once.

    Type 1 "Classic" symptoms:

    1. Easily distracted.
    2. Difficulty sustaining attention.
    3. Difficulty listening when others are speaking.
    4. Difficulty following through, finishing tasks.
    5. Difficulty keeping organized. ("Piles" syndrome)
    6. Has trouble keeping time, often tardy.
    7. Tendency to lose things.
    8. Makes careless mistakes, not always attentive to detail.
    9. Is forgetful.
    10. Fidgety, trouble sitting still without moving something.
    11. Sometimes has difficulty keeping quiet.
    12. Driven by a motor.
    13. Can talk excessively, incessantly repeating points.
    14. Impulsive, doesn't think through actions, or comments before they are done or said.
    15. Difficulty waiting for "their turn". Lane switching and hazardous driving in heavy traffic.
    16. Interrupts conversations, intrudes on others at inopportune moments.

    These symptoms can vary in degree and frequency per individual and describe the "basic" individual with ADHD. Most of these people are extremely intelligent and highly creative.

    One "bone" of contention revolves around treatment. The controversial use of ritalin to treat symptoms of the disorder in children. If you find this regimen "hard to swallow" consider this: the very best drug for ameliorating ADHD symptoms is the stimulant nicotine. That's right nicotine. Recently, the US Army released a study showing that smoking enhances the effectiveness of combat soldiers. It helps keep them focused, steady and alert. It now seems little wonder as to why so many WWII vets took up smoking while in uniform. It may also explain the dramatic increase in smoking in young adults. How many may be "self medicating" their symptoms from ADHD and its variants?

    There is hope in the marked effectiveness of changing the diets of autistic children. The diet uses organic foods, reduces wheat, gluten and sugar.

    In any case these disorders DO seem to have biological origins. And that is something to think about.

    1. Re:This is not AUTISM but it IS ADHD; Hypothesis by cweber · · Score: 1

      You're full of it.

      Consider this: Asperger's syndrome was described by a German doctor, observed on European patients. Psychologists in the US had a hard time getting used to Asperger's idea. That sounds like there are regional differences in wanting to accept new ideas and/or facts. Not higher prevalence of some syndrome.

      What the US does have is a unsatiable need to put labels on anything, and an amazing tendency towards collective paranoia. These are societal trends, and explain why there may be more diagnosed cases of ADD and autism in the US than elsewhere. Note that it's diagnosed cases, not absolute numbers. We basically have no idea how many people suffer from ADD or autism in any given society or region, because noone has vene undertaken such a great systematic study. Nor should they.

    2. Re:This is not AUTISM but it IS ADHD; Hypothesis by lerici · · Score: 1

      You apparently can't read and so your argument seems rather empty.

      ADHD was not a trend which was just "observed" by some German psychiatrist.

      IT HAS been studied through PETSCANS of brains of patients which were compared with PETSCANS of "normal" brains. New technologies have appeared which make it possible to obtain even more accurate information.

      THAT IS what is called empirical evidence. What empirical evidence do you have for arnsparger's?

      NONE. That is why ADHD is listed by the AMA as a *real* medical disorder. Not something "observed" by non-empirical psychological techniques.

      The scientists who have studied this for decades believe that as studies continue we will find that autism and most other forms of mild "psychological" disorders are related.

      The reason there are more in the US than Europe is speculation: : Type "T"'s have that gene. They are most likely to leave the familiar surroundings of home for the thrill and adventure of a new frontier. Even today's immigrants are likely the same "personality" type.

      Why might they exist in the first place? Evolution. How did early humans arise from their predecessors?

      Given American culture, its icons, the generic personality traits associated with Americans it seems to make sense.

  181. Wow by erotus · · Score: 1

    First off, this is one of the best comments I've read on /. in a while. I'm not autistic nor do I have asperger's syndrome, but everything you just wrote makes way too much sense. Especially this line - "Normal people pursue happiness, they don't experience it." You are definately leaning towards Zen Buddhism here. I know that another poster pointed this out, but I think you should look into Zen. There are different schools of Buddhism and Zen is not really a relgion so to speak. One could be a Jew and still be a practioner of Zen. Anyhow, I recommend reading anything by Thich Nhat Hanh. I think you would particularly enjoy "The Present Moment." There is plenty of his stuff on Amazon.

    Anyhow, I got carried away there and just to let you know, I'm not a Buddhist nor a practitioner of Zen. But a Zen practitioner would not persue they would just be.. (doh, there I go again). O.K, lets move on.

    Going back to where I started, this post really hits home with me in many ways. My friends and I have often discussed the very things you wrote about. First, that there is a segment of society that is considered "normal" or rather mundane so to speak. Instead of using a bell curve, which works if that's what floats your boat, we use an upright diamond. If you notice, the bulk of society fits nicely into a circle in the middle of that diamond.

    What I'm talking about here is not intelligence, but rather mindfulness and interests. The edges of that diamond are filled with those who are mindful and the mindless bulk of society fits in the center. I'm not implying that all of society is mindless, but as a general rule and in your own words "Normal people pursue happiness, they don't experience it."

    The average jane watches soaps because she wishes to live her life through the fantasy of TV actors and actresses. The average joe is spoonfed entertainment via the tube and and cheers when inflated pig skin crosses a certain line. Very few of these people could enjoy the things you write about. Society has basically told these people what to enjoy, what to think, what to watch, how to live, etc. They basically, have ceased to be mindful.

    I truly find it fascinating that peoples moods for the entire day/week are determined by the outcome of a soap opera or a football game. Here in TX, you'd think there was a funeral the day after a game where the Cowboys lose. People actually come to work depressed. The mood of the entire office is different.

    Some would say that football, baseball, basketball, hockey, cable TV, Satellite TV, soaps, sitcoms, talk shows, national enquirer, and many other venues of spoonfed entertainment is what's keeping the masses occupied,(fat, dumb, and happy)and this is what keeps the country stable. Who cares about what's really going on in the world, what the govt really does, how many people are starving, etc... as long as there is beer, football, and Jerry Springer. Well, this portion in itself could be another topic of discussion so I'll wrap it up here.

    Rogerborg, I hope to see some more of your posts. You and I have much in common. I'd write more, but it's lunchtime and I'm getting very hungry. Check out Thich Nhat Hanh, or Zen in general. It would probably make a hell of a lot of sense to you.

  182. Coincidence? by hether · · Score: 1

    Is it coincidence then that a lot of the people here on /. today have said that they have or their kids have these same disorders and traits? It would seem to reinforce the message of the article.

    --

    Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  183. Myer Briggs?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three cheers for the ENFP!

  184. how come that most geek love chaos? by the_ben · · Score: 1

    doesn't beeing messy and haveing the asperger contradict? according to the article most people who have the asperger love order and try to keep everything as neat as possible. most geeks i know (including me) can't keep order. most computer programmer's workplaces are crammed with some sort of stuff (plastic cartoon figures, tons of paper scraps, food wrappers, post-its etc.) especially my room is a big mess because it helps me to find stuff. if i would clean it up it would be impossible for me to locate important things ;) another interesting thought: some people love to write perl code which is impossible to read (and needs a lot time to be understood)

  185. Amen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This couldn't have been said any better.

    On a related note, here are some of my favourite quotes from the article:

    Attwood writes that computers "are an ideal interest for a person with Asperger's syndrome ... they are logical, consistent, and not prone to moods."


    Obviously, she doesn't use Windoze then, right?
    As more women enter the IT workplace, guys who might never have had a prayer of finding a kindred spirit suddenly discover that she's hacking Perl scripts in the next cubicle.

    'Mrs. Smith, here are the results of your amnio. There's a 1 in 10 chance that you'll have an autistic child, or the next Bill Gates. Would you like to have an abortion?'"
  186. wtf by banka · · Score: 0

    "Pokémon must have been invented by a team of Japanese engineers with Asperger."

    this must be the stupidest thing i've ever read in my entire life.

  187. Rich parents don't want their kids to be retarded by Eric+Green · · Score: 2
    I taught special education in the early 90's. One thing I found out was that middle and upper class parents did not like to hear a diagnosis of "moderate to severe retardation" for their child. Retards were so, like, "not cool". If the diagnostician changed the diagnosis to "autistic" (and put the 'moderate to severe retardation' into tiny print on the last page), they're like "Oh, autism! That's cool, like Rain Man!". So we called'em autistic, and stuck'em into the same special ed classroom that they'd have been in if diagnosed as retarded, with the same treatment, and voila, everybody was happy.

    I wonder if the diagnosis of "mental retardation" is going down at the same time that the diagnosis of "autism" is going up?

    -E

    --
    Send mail here if you want to reach me.
  188. you mean by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1

    good code is very general.

  189. Mod it Funny not Insightful by bstadil · · Score: 1

    Mod this up it funny

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  190. Chelation side-effects by Eric+Green · · Score: 2
    Chelation is very hard on the kidneys. There *HAVE* been cases of kidney failure caused by chelation. Thus I wouldn't personally recommend it unless there is some real evidence of heavy metal poisoning.

    "If in doubt, do no harm" should be the watchword here. There is certainly doubt about the effectiveness and safety of chelation when dealing with non-specific syndromes (as vs. diagnosed heavy metal poisoning).

    -E

    --
    Send mail here if you want to reach me.
  191. It pretty much goes without saying, doesn't it? by Pan+Solo · · Score: 1

    That if you are reading this article (and the innumerable comments below) you have at least a *mild* form of autism?

    -J

  192. 1st Grade by BlueFrog · · Score: 1
    So, how many slashdotters out there are well-adjusted, sociable geeks (Hmm, oxymoron?), and how many of you are/have been diagnosed as being "different" from your fellow homo sapiens?
    When I was in 1st grade, the teacher recommended that I be tested for placement in "Special Education"-- classes geared toward students with learning disabilities. I was tested, but found not to be in need of special classes.

    When I was in 2nd grade, my teacher recommended that I be placed in the "Gifted and Talented Education" program-- classes geared toward academically gifted students. I was tested, and found to be worthy of accelerated classes.

    When I was in 6th grade, I was placed (as my "GaTE" status dictated) in the accelerated math class, where I promptly fell behind, mostly because of a *terrible* teacher. [I will not rant... I will not rant...] I was quickly booted from the class (no parent-teacher conference, no warning, no nothing) and place in the "regular" math class, where I was hopelessly bored, and spent most of my time reading ahead in the book and scoring 100% on the exams. The kids there thoght I was a freak. Too smart to be in with them, too dumb to be with the advanced class. I began to think so too.

    In college, it was suggested that I might have some kind of learning disability in math, yet my calculus tutor often asked me why I felt that I needed him. It was also suggested that I might become a world-class tuba player, yet the music school kicked me out for "failing to progress toward a degree". (I then switched to a CS major and kicked ass.)

    What have I learned? In diagnosis as in life, fuck what they think. Just put the pedal down and leave a nice long patch o' rubber on the asphalt. All their diagnoses mean exatly zip in the face of a life well lived.

  193. Beware of quacks by Eric+Green · · Score: 2
    1. Hair analysis is useless as a measure of antimony and arsenic contamination. What you want is blood and urine tests. Only quacks rely on hair analysis. In one case that Dr. Barrett discussed, he sent hair samples to one of these "hair analysis" quacks from random people off the street, and EVERY SINGLE ONE came back with a diagnosis of "has mercury poisoning, contact us for treatment".
    2. Beware of *ANY* web site that is selling anything. "Information" on that site is intended to sell product, not to inform. Quackery is especially rampant under such conditions.
    What is needed is good, hard, double-blind scientific study. These are hard to come across. For example, I read one study that purported to show bad effects from very low levels of mercury contamination, levels far below what OSHA regulations allow (they studied dentists, who encounter mercury regularly since it is a component in various dental materials). They measured the performance of the dentists on various tests, then they measured both near-term exposure to mercury (via urine test) and long-term exposure to mercury (via administering a chelation agent and seeing how much mercury got flushed out of body tissues that way). What they found was interesting: short-term exposure had no correlation, while long-term exposure correlated with symptoms of mercury poisoning (poor hand control, poor short-term memory, etc.). BUT THEY DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AGE! That is, older dentists are the ones who would have encountered the most mercury in their life time -- but decreased short-term memory and reduced hand control are symptoms of aging as well as of mercury poisoning! So did they simply prove that older people have bad memories and trembly hands? Could be.

    And look, that's one of the BETTER experiments in the area. There's so much shoddy "research" out there done by people with an agenda that it's ridiculous. There's so much quackery out there that making any kind of conclusions about environmental aspects of autism is pretty much impossible right now. There are some better (longitudinal) studies under way, but it'll be some years before we really know anything from those.

    -E

    --
    Send mail here if you want to reach me.
  194. Asperger's *IS* Autism by rjh · · Score: 2

    Two psychologists independently discovered autism in the 1940s; Kanner and Asperger. Kanner wrote in English, Asperger wrote in German. That's why American psychologists always use autism to mean Kanner's Autism; it's marked by extreme social withdrawal, usually occurs with mental retardation, etc.

    The other side of the autistic spectrum is Asperger's Autism, aka Asperger's Syndrome, aka Very High Functioning Autism, aka Pervasive Developmental Disorder--Not Otherwise Specified, etc.

    Asperger's research into autism was well-known in continental Europe, but unknown in English-speaking places, until Lorna Wing translated Asperger's original works and brought him to the attention of the English-speaking psychological community. In America, there's a lot of debate as to whether or not Asperger's is a form of autism--the current belief is yes, but it's still being worked out. In the UK and Europe, there's very little debate about it; most psychologists believe that yes, it is.

    I have Asperger's, incidentally, so I try to keep abreast of the latest developments in the field. :)

    Check out OASIS, at University of Delaware, for more information regarding Asperger's Syndrome.

  195. mental retardation vs. autism by Eric+Green · · Score: 2
    70% of those with autism suffer from mild to severe mental retardation? More likely, parents don't want their kids to be retards, so diagnosticians are helpfully hanging "autism" tags on the kids.

    I know that when I was teaching special education, we had that happen a lot. Middle to upper class parents were particularly insistent that no child of theirs could POSSIBLY be a "retard". Hang the autism tag on the kid, and suddenly everything was cool -- "you mean he's like Rain Man?". Yeah, right. But hey, it made the parent happy, which was the important thing, and it did qualify the kid for the exact same special education treatment he would have gotten WITHOUT the autism label.

    -E

    --
    Send mail here if you want to reach me.
  196. I'm not talking about who "provides". by Chasing+Amy · · Score: 2

    I never once asserted anything about nuclear families where the dad works and mommy stays home, etc. I said that until about the last 60 years, maybe 100, women and men did not get married based on common interests. I can prove this going back to the earliest civilizations themselves, since in most of them women were the property of their fathers who sold them to their husbands. Common interests had absolutely nothing to do with who procreated with whom--what kind of wife you could afford, and who your friends were who might have daughters they want to get rid of, were the major factors.

    And do you really believe the prehistoric mating game had anything to do with common interests? Nope. Mating probably occurred under a wide variety of rather obvious circumstances, none of which have to do with two early humans sharing a technical interest in tool construction or somesuch.

    Taking ancient Athens as an example, women were considered little better than slaves and were once again bartered, and usually denied any education beyond the most basic. Again, no one was going to mate based on a mutual profession.

    In Rome women enjoyed many more rights, and indeed women could even sue their husbands for divorce. However, once again there was no place for women in most professions, so a woman and a man would not be married based having such things in common. Women in the lower and middle classes would usually work at whatever labor their husband worked at, out of necessity not out of mutual interest. And despite the fairly progressive rights women had, only the wealthy ones were ever educted to realize it--poor women were still bought and sold into marriage by fathers and husbands much as a commodity.

    Moving along into the colonial era you mention, once again women did not go into professions based on their interests unless they were wealthy, and even wealthy women were unlikely to be able to take up a given profession outright. For example, during the 1600s, how many women were members of the Royal Society ("guild" for scientists)? That would be, none. So, with no women in most professions which one would enter based on ability and aptitude and desire--not mere labor entered into from necessity--how would you expect that people with like intersts would marry? The fact is, as I have shown, they usually wouldn't.

    What you described is just husbands and wives sharing manual labor. Not the same thing at all as professionals meeting in the workplace, sharing common interests, and getting married. Not the same at all.

    Not until the 1800s would we really see the start of this, with a famous example being Marie Curie and her husband, who shared common interests and common work. Not until the 20th century would such marriages based on common interests become the norm.

    So, I think I've adequately shown my point and backed it up. Only in very very recent times have women and men met and courted and married based on professions which they entered due to mutual interest.

    --

    Chasing Amy
    (We all chase Amy...)
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
    1. Re:I'm not talking about who "provides". by Kupek · · Score: 2

      "Only in very very recent times have women and men met and courted and married based on professions which they entered due to mutual interest."

      That is your main point, concisely put. However, you originaly tried to blame it on "women's liberation." Big difference. Still using your main point from above, I could just as easily blame capitalism, or a better educational system that enables us to get the education necessary to hold these jobs, or even cars and planes that enable us to travel long distances.

      Women only tending to the home and children is the anomaly, so the women's liberation movement was really a correction. You're blaming a single factor when there are much larger issues to contend with.

    2. Re:I'm not talking about who "provides". by T.+Will+S.+Idea · · Score: 1

      I think your point is somewhat valid but you should recognize that traditionally the vast majority of men also did not have any say in choosing their profession. You were a farmer because you were born on a farm. You were a blacksmith because your father was able to negotiate an apprentiship for you when you were 11. When we point to people who were able to choose their profession they are often isolated examples of people from a privileged class.

      Biologists often define different species as distinct populations of animals incapable of interbreeding. However that definition has become more refined in recent years. Some boiologists accept a definition of seperate species where two populations are technically capable of interbreeding but practically incapable (due to differences in mating calls for example).

      It would be interesting indeed if such groups were found to exist in humans. Perhaps what silicon valley needs is an agressive program to import supermodels and counteract the current affects.

      --
      If electricity is produced by electrons is morality produced by morons?
    3. Re:I'm not talking about who "provides". by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      Women only tending to the home and children is the anomaly, so the women's liberation movement was really a correction.

      No, in the example you gave, the women did manual labor (farm work, I imagine) as part of their duties to home and family. When people moved off the farm to the city, women simply ceased doing the manual labor part.

      I don't see how the women's liberation movement (which for the first time took wives and mothers out of their homes to work) is any kind of correction. One may think it is a good thing (obviously I don't), but it is not a return to any kind of norm.

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    4. Re:I'm not talking about who "provides". by Kupek · · Score: 2

      The rise of capitalism and modern industry took men out of their homes to work; it would have been natural for the same to happent to women. That's what I mean by a correction.

    5. Re:I'm not talking about who "provides". by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      The rise of capitalism and modern industry took men out of their homes to work; it would have been natural for the same to happent to women. That's what I mean by a correction.

      That statement is based on many assumptions that I do not particularly agree with. Capitalism "rose" during the renaissance. I think what you're referring to is the demise of family farms and mass migration to the cities.

      In any case, before this happened there was an understood (yes yes, traditional...) division of duties in the family. Men would be more likely to work outside the home, and women more likely to work in it. Regardless of who does what job, I think everyone agreed that both jobs needed to be done. In the case of a family farm, both jobs happen to occur near the same location.

      It would be natural for both sexes to work outside the home only if, as you suggest, in-home work was worthless and didn't require doing. That is the main assumption I don't agree with.

      If the person who worked at home didn't have anything important to do there, why was he/she there in the fist place? Any society that wastes half their available labor force sitting around the house doing nothing more important than crocheting doilies is at a severe evolutionary disadvantage. The first barbarian tribe with an integrated armed forces would easily overwhelm and crush their neighbors. But that didn't happen. Which suggests to me that whoever was in the home must have been doing something critically important to the survival of the community in order to justify the resources diverted away from moneymaking, hunting, and warfare.

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

  197. child psychatrists: just shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i might have been autistic as a child, but one thing i know for sure, if some psychatrist would have told me at age 11 that i'm ill and wrong and disabled all the time i would have gone REALLY crazy

  198. ADHD myths by Eric+Green · · Score: 2
    As a former special education teacher, I have to say that ADHD *DOES* exist. While there are too many kids who are diagnosed as "ADHD" when the real problem is lack of parenting, this does not take away from the fact that there are indeed kids who have problems with their brains that affect their ability to control themselves. For example, I once taught a kid I'll call "Ed" who was a very nice, sweet kid... but he'd do things that were STUPID just on a whim, without any of the normal checks and balances that keep most of us from doing stupid things. Then when you sent him to timeout and asked him afterwards why he did X, he'd say "I dunno, I just did it," very abashedly (not defiantly).

    To say that all ADHD kids are diagnosed as ADHD because they're "defiant" or "rebellious" is an insult to those kids who are basically good kids who just don't seem to have the normal "filters" that keep most kids from killing themselves before age 10. The kids I met who were "really" ADHD (as vs. kids who had been diagnosed for convenience) were generally sweet (but very sloppy!) kids who were in no way "defiant" or "rebellious".

    -E

    --
    Send mail here if you want to reach me.
  199. I AM AUTISTIC. by spyro · · Score: 1

    Well, The subject says all.

    Im diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, and I can tell you that its no sham diagnosis.

    I am a computer programmer. I have some of my code in the linux kernel, I had a great job programming, even if the pay wasnt good.

    However, because of my social difficulties, I have been unable to cope with the challenges of communication in the workplace, and the commute, which together, have basically done me in.

    I no longer have my job, and Im off on sick leave with a family of 4 to support (yes, we do have families, children, partners, etc.)

    Im frankly shocked to find people minimising my condition. Just because Im not some drug addict loser with an IQ of 23, people assume Im not entitled to any support from the local council, to accomodate my problems. My employer doesnt uderstand or even /want/ to deal with my problems.

    Please, people, think before you post - sure, AS and autism are overdiagnosed at the monment, but the population of Slashdot probably contains a VERY high percentage of Aspie (asperger) nerds and geeks. Who says we dont need some help?

    1. Re:I AM AUTISTIC. by bbqBrain · · Score: 1

      That's a tough break. Have you talked to your employer (or others) about working from home?

      I guess the only positive spin I could put on your comment is that autistic children today have much better chances of being helped early on, thanks to programs like Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA).

      --

      One of the reasons that I became a lawyer was to avoid ever having to hire one. -SPYvSPY
    2. Re:I AM AUTISTIC. by spyro · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Incredibly, my employer is an ISP, which makes it all the more bizarre that I cant telecommute...

      Re ABA, well, thats a hot topic.

      If anyone here is interested in reading a more balanced perspective on this subject, I would recommend the newsgroup alt.support.autism - but please dont slashdot it - it is a support forum, not a Q and A board.

  200. Adult ADHD by Eric+Green · · Score: 2
    An adult is hardly likely to tell you that he's ADHD, is he? If you're wanting to chat with adult ADHD folks, there's a USENET newsgroup for them ( alt.support.attn-deficit ) that you might want to go peruse.

    By the way, there's this key called ' (single quote), which is used for these things called, y'know, CONTRACTIONS, dig? I believe they still teach about contractions in English classes, though I may be wrong considering the state of education today.

    And yes, his friend has a serious problem. He's ADHD. Which, despite all the kids overdiagnosed due to poor parenting, is still a real disease that has real brain differences compared to "normal" people.

    -E

    --
    Send mail here if you want to reach me.
  201. Read it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I did read it. As with ADHD, it exists but, before trying to diagnose 90% of the kids with it, maybe other issues should be looked it.

  202. not likely . . . by hawk · · Score: 2
    >Richard Feynman, RIP.


    According to his Quantum Chromo-Dynamics, he should be anything but peaceful. 1 live Feynman simply goes forward in time. 0 dead Feynmans, hoewever, consist of a Feynman going backwards in time (making it an anti-Feynman) until the moment of his death, at which time it goes forward in time as a Feynman, which balances out to 0 net Feynmans--but he's twice as busy as when alive!


    hawk

    1. Re:not likely . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 TEH FUNNIE

    2. Re:not likely . . . by sigwinch · · Score: 2

      [Insert joke about dead people being stupid because the retarded wave catches up...]

      --

      --
      Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end. ;-)

  203. Richard Feynman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Richard Feynman was a Jew. Does that count?

  204. Re:Etiology doesn't matter- by cweber · · Score: 1

    I think you hit the nail on the head. A far as ADD, ADHD and other labels go, I have been of your opinion for quite some time. And yes, it exonerates parents, teachers and other from shouldering the responsibility to deal with the peculiarity of a certain child's behavior and find a SOLUTION. That's the worst of it.

    When it comes to autism, I feel that there is a continuum of severity. As stated elsewhere is this discussion, Asperger's has long been neglected in English-speaking psychology circles and now that it is being considered, all of a sudden more cases are being diagnosed, some of them far less severe than 'traditional' autism. The world is not black and white, you don't either have it or not. There are many shades of grey. Maybe there aren't even any truly normal people?

    I consider myself slightly autistic, and a therapist even once mentioned as much, but it does not prevent me from functioning well in this world. I have a beautiful wife, kids, work in groups, take on leadership, etc.
    In the end it is what you DO ABOUT IT, how you cope with your own deficiencies, and how hard you work to make up for it.

    Likewise, I think most people who are labelled with some diagnosis, be it currently in fashion or not, can overcome much of it, if they and their families CHOOSE to deal with it.

  205. A little autism can be a good thing. by Ardias · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My understanding of autism is that there are several genes which contribute to it. If somebody has some of the genes, but not all or most, they may have some of the symptoms of Autism. Having some of the genes can be a benefit, but having all or most can be a detriment.

    Same as with the gene for sickle-cell anemia. If you have 1 copy of the sickle-cell gene, you can survive malaria. If you have both genes, you're gonna get sickle-cell anemia.

    Among my family members, I have a brother with Autism, and a nephew with Asperger's.

    My brother is high-functioning. He does trig and exponential math in his head. (He compared calculators to himself and found mistakes in a calculator.) He can tell you the day of the week for any day from 1583 A.D. to 6482 A.D. And when Easter Sunday will occur on year in that time frame. He also taught himself 15 human languages by reading dictionaries and grammar guides. He can write math programs that run perfectly the first time. But, for social skills, he is like the character in the "RainMan" movie.

    My nephew is still young (11 years), but he already has shown a lot of aptitude for math. He's still learning what skills he can develop, and with a supportive family, he will be encouraged to learn. His brother (13 years) is also a math whiz who has already built his own computer, and set up the device drivers for that computer.

    Among my siblings, I have a sister with a masters degree in math and chemical engineering. She makes chips for Intel.

    I have another brother who put his math, geography, and computer skills to work making mapping software.

    I make software tools for people that design custom chips.

    One member of my family does multi-dimensional calculus in his head.

    Some of my extended family pick up new software languages quickly, and learning the nuances of it. We have many advanced degrees and unusual specialties. There is a wide range of social skills among us. The vast majority of us do just fine at getting along with others.

    Apparently having some of the autism genes allows geeks to provide much needed skills to society. (And get the neat high $ jobs.)

  206. It may be changing . . . (economics did!) by hawk · · Score: 2
    If you have that kind of difference running around, there's a possiblity that the field is changing.


    One of the things that drew me to economics when leaving law is that it is still emerging as a science. To call the economics of 30 or 40 years ago science would be pushing it, at best. Today, with the Ph.D.'s produced in the last 10 years or so, the scientific method has won. As a science, economics is still primitive--perhaps at a level near Newton's laws of motion.


    There's still plenty of cranks around, but retirement by retirement, "social science"[1] is being displaced by science. The split between positive economics [science] and normative economics [politics, social choice] is becoming explicit.


    We're also much more careful about experiments. The pyscholgists are in an irrecoverable hole, as too many people understand that they *are* being lied to as part of the experiment. In economics, the tendency is to refuse approval of an experiment that lies to the subjects--*and*, more importantly, to discount the alleged results. We're studying the decisions made, and the lie contaminates the decision. I once saw a psychologest utterly flabbergasted by the explanation of a particular economic experiment--she had never even conceived that an experiment could be performed without lying to the subjects.


    We are also careful about our selection of subjects. I won't go out on a limb and claim that the *typical* subject in a psych experiment comes from the "you must complete two experiments for my research to pass this class" category, but I've seen that requirement, and watched people fill out the forms. That would never fly in econ. Not only are people who have ever before participated in an econ experiment typically filtered out, we sometimes filter out even those who have taken a class in the subject.[2]


    hawk


    [1] I'm still not sure what a social science is, and I have a Ph.D. in Economics . . . it seems to me that, most often, the term is used to claim an exemption from the scientific method. I am a scientist who studies economics, not a social scientist.
    [2] There are articles showing a clear difference in the choices made by those who have taken at least one econ class.

  207. what's so "chilling" about the possibility? by markj02 · · Score: 1
    A group of people that is very intelligent, hard-working, have children, and are incapable of deception. What's so "chilling" about that?

    Humans have evolved elaborate mechanisms for sdeception, pretense, and manipulating each other. Those probably served some evolutionary purpose. Now these seem to be impaired in people with Asperger's syndrome. But, so what? Fur and the prehensile tail served their purposes in our ancestors, but we eventually discarded them.

    Maybe, rather than a disease, Asperger's syndrome is simply one reasonable possibility for the evolution of humanity. Maybe Earth will actually become Vulcan. Time will tell.

  208. I can top that . . . by hawk · · Score: 2
    I got sent to speech classes for a similar reason. My speech teacher was quite proud of her achivement. I don't think anyone had the heart to tell her that my two front teeth had grown in at the same time . . .


    hawk

  209. I have aspergers by daverabbitz · · Score: 1

    I am a 14 year old boy with aspergers and a great deal of skill in linux sysadmin work and hardware maintenance. I enjoy working with computers and hate M$ because of all the bad things they have said about Linux and opensource.

    --
    What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
    1. Re:I have aspergers by spyro · · Score: 1

      You might want to pop into the newsgroup alt.support.autism and say hi.

  210. Amish Land by NRAdude · · Score: 0

    I can see where your hypothesis is leading. It is a verry good one at that and let's bump heads together a little... Look at the past of USA; many families consisted of simple, but physically strenuous work. Farmers, metal working, carpenters, fishermen, and housebuilding topped the charts. Many people worked from night to night; no different than today. However, there is a big difference back then and now. For example, we are aware and can develop different forms of radiation. Long-range communication, high-tech urban development tools, genetic engineering of foods, excessive use of un-natural medications, and higher useage of automobiles have all risen as daily occurences. Look at all this technology we utilize and much of it is developed on theory. Electricicicians and ASIC engineers work on theories they have been taught based on a cause and effect series of studies in their education. Nobody knows what new-age technology's limits realy are.

    So, let's compare ourselves with the rest of the world and then let's compare ourselves with the beloved Amish people who have outlawed electricity, cars, and any technology that doesn't utilize the motor skills provided by horses, goats, squirrels, and black powder. Some people I know honestly claim it is a side-effect of the industrial revolution. Alot of new, incompletely studied, but revolutionary technology dominates the USA and the rest of the world in mass production, etc. Even 3rd world countries that hire people for factory working are being affected somewhat. Silicon Valley is in the middle of it all.

    The Amish people live everywhere throughout the midwest and central United States. All of them build barns in all times of the day and night and they get home and enjoy a dinner of steak, eggs, milk, and you name it. Autism is the result of something we can't see in the midst of the technology we created. The only way to prevent autism is to live like the Amish people: hard-working, eat wholesome food, work sun-up to sun-down, enjoy the company of your verry plain wife and kids, help eachother out of kindness, shun electricity and automobiles, keep yourself well-dressed in black clothing, don't shave ever again, and read the Bible and pray.

    Sounds like 1,000 years ago doesn't it? And 1,000 years ago most people died early because of disease, war, or starvation. What is different from today and way back when? Possibly our bodies were never meant to realize their full lifetime, were are choosing wives and husbands from different races of people, our food's genetics is being altered. I think there is a thin line between progress and regression and most of the technology created today is not progress. It is affecting us all somehow. Some way that we will not be able to see unless, lord-willing, we continue our current work causing these genetic problems and see-through to its treatment and removal; that may take another 1,000 years, so why waste that time? We'll propabley develop bigger tomatoes somewhere along the way and that might be the only positive progress. Let's just try to live simple lives and stay away from electricity as much as possible, like the Amish people do.

    --
    without prejudice
  211. Re:Pure bunkus by foxwitt · · Score: 1

    I agree that when identical twins share the condition 90% of the time, its not coincidence. However, if this condition is genetically pre-determined, or even pre-disposed, shouldn't identical twins share it to a much higher percentage? A few nines at least, it seems to me. It seems that this fact of only a 90% correlation in identical twins shows that there is some other factor that sets the thing in motion.

    --
    Today our lesson will be Chapter 1 of Elementary Necromancy: Proper Use of a Shovel.
  212. Autism as an autoimmune disorder by Trishkabob · · Score: 1
    A fascinating theory, one backed up by evidence, is that autism is an autoimmune disorder, where the immune response is directed against chemicals in the brain (specifically, the myelin sheath).

    For those unfamiliar: an autoimmune disorder is a disease where, basically, your immune system has gone haywire and attacks self-cells. The most familiar one is allergies.

    Autism, Autoimmunity, and Immunotherapy gives a nice synopsis of the theory, with explanation of connection to autistic characteristics to back it up. Interestingly, there may in fact be a connection between vaccines and autism, with viruses acting as teratogens in young developing brains. But it needn't be vaccines; cytomegalovirus (caught from the mother?) was one explored factor.

    OK, so how does this have anything to do with Silicon Valley, or geeks? Maybe it's the onslaught of very many challenges to a young child's immune system, all at once as vaccines. Kids today do get more vaccines, and in greater combination, than a generation ago (even when we still had vaccines for smallpox). I have no doubt that kids in Silicon Valley get ALL their shots, and then some. Income and access to broad healthcare may be a better predictor than "geek factor".

    The genetic component may be the inheritance of susceptibility to certain autoimmune disorders, like allergies. How many geeks do you know have allergies? This theory also includes other environmental factors that may instigate autoimmune disorders. (And as someone noted, Silicon Valley's got a serious groundwater contamination problem.)

    And if you just can't learn enough, here's the Autism Autoimmunity Project. How Asperger's Syndrome fits into all this, I haven't a clue.

  213. Ritalin &ADD & ADHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    You'd probably recognize my name if I didn't hit anonymously, but I'm not going to (so someone kindly mod this up to at least 1, please :).


    Actual ADD comes from a shortage of a particular neurotransmitter related to attention. *any* stimulant will cause production of this neurotransmitter, both in the normal and ADD brain. For those with ADD, ritalin is much "cleaner" than many of the alternatives, but it is a strong central nervous stimulant. (And the "same as amphetamine" is as much nonsense as "H20 and H2SO4 are the same.)


    As for the suggestion that Ritalin doesn't help, and that disorientation comes from ritalin withdrawl--the evidence is stacked against you. Ritalin has the same effect for adults who start taking it at 30, 40, or 50 (speaking from experience, which is why this is anonymous).


    Social adaptation helps. I did a lot of that, and don't suffer from the "social" symptoms. I get along quite well socially, thank you. My behavior is quite appropriate (in some cases, a learned behavior). The sad fact of the matter is that I don't have an attention span--a chipmonk can stay on task longer than I can without medication.


    Adrenalin will do it as wel--with the side effect (like many stimulants) of a pounding heart. This cansometimes get a person through stressful situations, such as tests, but can't be relied on.


    Yes, ADD and ADDHD are probably grossly overdiagnosed, but the anti-ritalin kooks are just plain that (and no, it's not addictive--a primary problem is forgetting to take it).


    Finally, i've been distracted and done 3 or 4 other things, just while trying to write this.

    1. Re:Ritalin &ADD & ADHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and no, it's not addictive--a primary problem is forgetting to take it


      That just means it's not psychologically addictive. It still may or may not be physically addictive.

    2. Re:Ritalin &ADD & ADHD by other_things_to_do · · Score: 1

      Unfortunatly many people think of Methamphetamine when they hear "amphetamine." Amphetamine drugs are not a singular, pure substance. The amphetamine molecule is always bound to some other molecule (hence the "meth"). This additional molecule helps regulate the rate at which the drug is absorbed by the body. Amphetamines used to treat ADD are teamed with other compounds that control the absorbtion rate. The problem with Methamphetamine is that it is absorbed by the body very quickly and it is believed that the steep onset of the effects contribute to its more addictive nature.

      People also tend to think that ADD is restricted to mean that the person suffers from a lack of attention span. This is not always the case. I myself have ADD and I often have what can be considered an excessive attention span. In general my life bounces from being unable to concentrate on anything to being overly focused on something. It is not uncommon for me to be walking to the kitchen to get something to eat and while on the way there have something divert my attention. Next thing I know 6 hours has passed and I am still fiddling with whatever it was. Of course, by then I am really, really hungry because over those 6 hours I never did complete my trip to the kitchen.

  214. Maybe it's the "sheeple" getting back at us... by EdmondDantes · · Score: 1

    Maybe they are so offended that we don't like being sheep, that they can only conclude that we must be sick!

  215. Beware the cure! by garyrich · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I saw this in the Wired article:

    "We have the human data," says Shestack. "Now we need the brute-force processing power. We need high-density SNP mapping and microarray analysis so we can design pharmaceutical interventions. We need Big Pharma to wake up to the fact that while 450,000 people in America may not be as large a market as for cholesterol drugs, we're talking about a demand for new products that will be needed from age 2 to age 70.

    OK, I work in Big Pharma (though I don't speak for them, blah blah). The big $$ here would not be "curing" those 450k. The $$ would be creating a drug to *induce* an Asperger like state in the normals. Think of it as Viagra for study skills. I think we could sell a few doses of that....

    Vernor Vinge (wonder if he reads /.) experimented with this idea in his latest book, calling it "Focus". The ramifications where not totally positive, to say the least.

    garyr

    --
    -- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
    1. Re:Beware the cure! by Megahurts · · Score: 1

      I don't know if that can be done.

      from what I understand, there's a lump of tissue in the brain that generally atrophies at around 2 years old. It's the part that helps infants with visual processing in the prelingual stages of life, and usually it just kind of "goes away." I've read of correlations between that tissue remainig and children being diagnosed with forms of autism. (I don't remember where. It might have been mentioned somewhere on the web or in Temple Grandin's book "Thinking in Pictures") Nobody really knows why that tissue remains, though. Might be genetic, might be due to certain vaccinations, or something not even thought of yet.

      anyway, that would lead me to believe it's not a reproducable chemical state but an actual difference in the neural interconnectivity that leads to an autistic state of mind, hence my belief that it is an evolutionary process.

  216. lateness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    File this under the "wildly outdated" category. I got this issue a month ago.

  217. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water! by rselph · · Score: 1

    While I certainly agree with you about "stylish" diagnosis, it's important to remember that the backlash can cause just as much harm as the over-use of the label. There are some kids out there who are really different, who are in need of special care and special education. They need our understanding in order to survive and prosper. When the pendulum swings back to the unpopular side, some kids are going to be missed just because the doctor is afraid to use a "debunked" term.

  218. ahem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am an aspergers guy myself, and i do not feel superior to aNybody. i do however mean that all human conflict and chit-chat is unnecesarry, and that rocking compulsively is underrated

  219. singular by GungaDan · · Score: 1

    Hawking. Singular. No "s." Cool chair.

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    1. Re:singular by jnana · · Score: 1

      Yes. Hawking, singular, and Stephen, not Steven.

  220. Tell your story by bstadil · · Score: 1

    Why don't you post a bit more, notably how you found out and your "take" on the various comments posted here today. Which ones comes closest to the "truth" in you mind.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  221. Try Hangul or Tengwar alphabets by yerricde · · Score: 1

    there is no relationship between the symbolic glyphs C, A and T and the sound one physically makes when saying 'cat'

    That's because the Latin alphabet, frankly, sucks. The Hangul alphabet, used to write the Korean language, and the Tengwar alphabet, used to write the Quenya and Sindarin languages, were designed to have much more correlation between the phonetics of a sound (voiced/voiceless, stop/fricative/nasal, front/back, etc.) and the shape of the associated glyph.

    You can bet that with the marketing behind the LotR movie, there will be a movement to change English over to Tengwar letters. It's already happening with the Lojban language.

    --
    I am autistic.
    I am artistic.
    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  222. And so, to summarize ... by Untimely+Ripp'd · · Score: 1
    Okay.


    Is Asperger's/Autism a real disease?

    Many here insist NO! It's just an arbitrary classification by the majority of a minority whose members are discomfitting to the majority. This is pretty funny, if you've ever met a severely autistic person. Severely autistic people are, simply put, non-functional. If you took them out of their bedrooms and put them anywhere other than a grocery store, they would die within a week. To my mind, that's pretty clearly a disease.

    On the other hand, milder varieties of autism (such as Asperger's syndrome) are more about culture than about disease. When a culture decides to identify a set of behaviours as a disorder, just because those behaviours don't fit the culture, then it seems to me it is the culture that has the disease.

    The same argument holds for ADHD. It's one thing for a child to be pinging off the walls and screaming non-stop, and it's another thing entirely for a child to be unable to sit quietly for hours on end in a boring schoolroom. The remarkable thing, given our evolutionary history, is that there are any kids who CAN sit quietly like that, at least without sleeping. If you're medicating 25% of your kids because their behaviour doesn't suit your cultural needs, your culture has a disease. Most of your kids are fine. By definition.

    On the other other hand, there are deaf people who don't think there's anything wrong with them. (They're wrong.)

    On the other other other hand, an Australian psychiatrist named John Ellard wrote a great book of essays called Some Rules for Killing People, in which he made a good argument that the definitions of madness are usually cultural. He suggests that the indications that mark the "disease" schizophrenia have changed with time and place, and that what we call schizophrenia today didn't even exist when the term schizophrenia was coined.
    Meanwhile, a contributor elsewhere in this thread says his schizophrenia is a good thing. One wonders whether Jim Gordon felt the same way about HIS schizophrenic symptoms, which included voices that told him to kill his mother with a hammer. He obliged. Too bad, he was a great drummer.

    Today, there is almost no doubt that there is a genetic component to both Asperger's and autism. And all the people in here insisting that this is just pop psychology psychobabble need to understand that while Asperger's is not the worst thing that can happen to someone, severe autism is WAY up there on that list. If Asperger's and autism really are just different points on the same genetic spectrum, then mating pairs of Aspies are playing with a very promethean variety of fire.

    I could, by the way, make an argument that Asperger's is a fairly dangerous syndrome to everybody else. Self-absorption by artists is socially insignificant. Self-absorption by curiosity-driven technologists is Pandora's Box.

    --

    And let the angel whom thou still hast serv'd tell thee ...

  223. Re:Sad, but just imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There already is one. It's called "Slashdot."

    My apologies to the autistic.

  224. Is It Really That Surprising? by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 3, Interesting



    Well gee, lets look at the facts..

    You have a group of people consuming copious amounts of a drug known to cause low birth weight, birth defects, mental retardation, and complications during pregnancy. Caffiene. A fetus isn't able to metabolize caffiene, so it builds up in the fetus' body eventually interfereing with nervous system growth. To the mother, Caffiene is also a diuretic, and an appetite supressant. The more caffiene the mother takes in, the less likely she is to eat well, and provide her unborn baby with the nutrients it needs.

    The mothers and fathers spend alot of time near high-strength EMF from computer monitors, at least 8 hours a day if theyre employed. EMF causes chromosomal abnormalities.

    The mother and the father of the children live in one of the most polluted areas of the entire country in terms of air quality. Carcinogens given off by automobiles make their way into the air, into the water, and in some cases, even into the food they eat on a daily basis. Welcome to California.

    Is it any wonder your kid turns out autistic?

    Cheers,

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

  225. What the hell makes you so special? by HKTiger · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Okay, you may (note I say *may*) be smarter than some folks. You've probably had a better education and more opportunities handed to you on a plate.

    But you clearly don't know diddly about biodiversity, or ethics, or common sense, or anything else. Just because you're better educated than most, does that make you a better person? Does it make you kinder, more impartial, more compassionate, stronger, healthier, less prone to infections or jumping to conclusions?

    Does it give your genes (dare I suggest, your probably white middle-class male genes) sufficient variability to make up for the lack of diversity that will occur if you stop all the stupid (your word, chucky, not mine) people from breeding?

    Doesn't that sound like the worst kind of fascism to you? Supposed racial or genetic superiority as yet another excuse?

    Honestly, you may be smart in some ways, but you're sure dumb in so many others...

    1. Re:What the hell makes you so special? by casey_66 · · Score: 1

      what does it hurt you to be nice or fair to morons besides trip your impatience? What is your gain in being unfair? what do you gain by acting just like the high school morons who beat the shit out of nerds?

    2. Re:What the hell makes you so special? by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      the geeks might give you the means to amuse yourself even more, in ways you find much more satisfying, if you left them alone to do their thing

    3. Re:What the hell makes you so special? by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      the theory is that a society built on your ideals will not survive as long as one where you leave the geeks alone to produce far better weapons, entertainment devices, etc.

    4. Re:What the hell makes you so special? by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      What you don't seem to realize is that you can beat others and still be sufficiently intelligent to construct weapons, and creative enough to provide entertainment...


      That's the question. I'm saying you won't create weapons and entertainment as good or as quickly as the weird, funny-looking, crippled, ugly Dr. Strangelove-type geeks can do for you. So your society will be easily defeated by others that don't beat up on geeks.



      A society that requires strength in all areas will function quite well


      I'm saying, specialization of roles will yield greater and quicker advances than one role trying to do everything.



      If you want to be left alone, by all means, move the fuck away... Go live on an island by yourselves and create your paradise of weakness and dysfunction...


      yep you've got my life's dream down.

    5. Re:What the hell makes you so special? by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      we'll see.

  226. Mathematician with Asperger's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fields medal winner Richard Borcherds believes he has Asperger's syndrome; see for example this article.

  227. Darwinism = SURVIVAL of the Fittest by Galvatron · · Score: 2
    Now then, if only some 1% of the population dies before sexual maturity, then darwinism will not occur. The mutation rate is probably higher than that.


    If anything is producing evolution in industrialized nations, it's probably a combination of genetic drift (for the worse, because most mutations are harmful, think flipping a random bit in an executable) and who reproduces the most. So, in a million years' time, we'll probably all be moronic Catholics.

    --
    "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    1. Re:Darwinism = SURVIVAL of the Fittest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, in a million years' time, we'll probably all be moronic Catholics.
      No, that was like some hundred years ago. Were moving forwards (or maybe it's backwards?) And flipping a bit in an exec will almost never do any good, like breeding them (half of this and half of that and mix it) won't work, it will just create a useless pile of messy code. That is, if they're not nearly identical, then you could get intresting results. Hey, that could be something to try, breeding exe's!
    2. Re:Darwinism = SURVIVAL of the Fittest by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      Actually, they are nearly identical. Even chimps have some 99.7% identical DNA. "And flipping a bit in an exec will amost never do any good." That was my point! It will usually be bad, occasionally catastrophic, and only very rarely beneficial. That's why most species have a very high death rate.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  228. Iaido... by Blind+Demiurge+Ialda · · Score: 0

    Ah, yes, the Japanese art of the fast draw. Remind me not to fuck with your friend; since I tend to favor rapiers.

    --

    ******
    "I do not play at being God -- I AM GOD!

  229. I'm an Aspie! by racerx509 · · Score: 1

    Actually, Aspergers is much more than just what Wired reported on. I was recently diagnosed with it and it includes a few un-geek like things. For one thing, many Aspies are terrible at math and calculations; I can do physics or write programs in cobol, C, Fortran, and even do some x86 assembler, but I can't for the life of me grasp basic Algebra. I had to repeat it four times in high school and once in college. Another thing about Aspies is a tendance for motor slowness and clumsiness. I was fired from two jobs for moving too slowly, and from another for damaging too much merchandise due to clumsiness. Also, many Aspies tend to have an akward gate, which I definately have and it looks mighty strange being 6' 4". However, the thing about social situations is very accurate. I cannot seem to navigate regular social interactions, and have been the butt of ridicule all of my life. I only have three real friends, and have never had a girl friend. The diagnosis was huge weight off of my shoulders, because it explains a whole lot. I can type around 60 words per minute, but can't write legibly or quickly. I can't run or do any bilateral sports such as football (running and catching) or basketball. I can load down with two programming courses a semester, but I can't pass basic Algebra, and I can carry on two or three ICQ conversations but not one in the RW. Its real Asperger. there's a wealth of info online, and I hope someone reads this, but the moderators are probably all gone.

    --
    13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
    1. Re:I'm an Aspie! by spyro · · Score: 1

      pop over to alt.support.autism :-)

  230. Asperger was, truly, a Nazi by wytcld · · Score: 2

    Asperger published in the early 40s in Germany. He produced a diagnosis that medicalized personality traits that didn't add up to being a good Nazi. He was part of the patriotic Nazi medical establishment.

    On this whole, the diagnosis is strangely close to the stereotype of an excentric Englishman.

    The only thing to worry about is that his diagnosis has recently become so popular. What does that say about the current stage of our society?

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  231. "Over 90% of autistics are blood type A" by Baldrson · · Score: 2

    According to Dr. Jeff Bradstreet a little-mentioned fact is that Over 90% of autistics are blood type A. If true, that would be better than twice the expected frequency for American "whites" and so close to 100% that the probability of it being due to chance is disappearingly small.

  232. Contradiction by Cryogenes · · Score: 1

    How can it be possible that a disease is both genetically transmitted and rapidly spreading?

    Makes no sense to me.

    1. Re:Contradiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There exists eight (8) really Horny austic Cassanovas in the SV area -- real sausage stuffers these eight. Whilst some austic folk can play piano, derive prime numbers in their heads, &c, these three are blessed with 9" dicks and a svelte manner.

      Make sense? No condoms.

  233. From the House testimony-- by schmaltz · · Score: 2

    The issue of coincidence

    Many pediatricians have expressed the opinion that, for autism, any association between MMR vaccination and the parents' recognition of the child's behavioral problems in coincidental. Such an assumption is inappropriate in the absence of a through history and investigation. For example, the symptoms of classical, early onset autism are often noticed initially, in the first and second years of life the child does not develop in the way of normal siblings and peers.

    Parental concerns about the child's development are often expressed in the second year, when these differences become evident. MMR vaccine is given routinely at this age, and coincidence is therefore inevitable. However, in children with autistic regression, the pattern is of loss of speech, language and social skills, accompanied by bizzare behaviors, _in a previously developmentally normal child_. This is consistent with an early onset disintegrative psychosis. Furthermore, loss of speech and language are accompanied by symptoms of excessive thirst, bowel disturbances, self-injury, and a self-limited diet associated with cravings for particular foods. Atopy and recurrent, refactory upper respiratory tract infections are prominent features. These symptoms do not feature in the exclusively behavioral descriptors of the diagnostic manual for autism - DSM-IV.

    The issue of coincidence may be addressed, in part, by considering those children who have received more than one measles containing vaccine.
    ...

    --
    Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?
  234. Richard Feynman by Richy_T · · Score: 2

    Look him up.

    Rich

  235. What's your take on the postings by bstadil · · Score: 1

    I think it would be interesting if you could comment on some of the higher rated postings on this thread. Notably "A Theory" about seeing the details rather than the totality.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  236. Wired leaves out the most suspected cause by redbeard_ak · · Score: 1

    My girlfriend works with many autistic kids - she's got a masters in speech therapy. She thought that the article left out the most commonly suspected cause of autism, which is environmental pollution. According to her, there is very little research literature that expressed parental traits are any indication of autism.

    Why would Wired leave that out? Silicon Valley has one of the _highest_ concentrations of super-fund sites in the country (if not _the_ highest). While software leaves no mess, hardware - boards and chips - are very messy. I used to work in Samsung's fab in Austin, TX and I've read some very scary MSDSes. Perhaps Wired doesn't want to offend Silicon Valley?

    Were we live now, in islands of southeast Alaska, there aren't many hi-tech folks. There are a lot of unemployed loggers and fishermen - not many cases of Asperger's there. However, there are many children diagnosed with 'autistic spectrum disorder.' The suspected cause - nothing has been proven - is the shutdown pulp mills and their superfund sites.

    A correlation that the article didn't mention is the incidence of 'asd' with other environmentally triggered cancers, such as breast cancer.

    Her other comment was that the actual diagnosis was called, 'austic spectrum disorder,' and that Asperger's Syndrome was very much on one end. She stressed that 'functioning autistics' are very, very, rare (the woman mentioned in the article is famous for being the exception to the rule.)

    --
    . This sig unintentionally left blank. I meant to put something here, but I'm busy.
    1. Re:Wired leaves out the most suspected cause by digaman · · Score: 1

      > My girlfriend works with many autistic kids - she's got a masters in speech therapy. She thought that the article left out the most commonly suspected cause of autism, which is environmental pollution... Why would Wired leave that out? Silicon Valley has one of the _highest_ concentrations of super-fund sites in the country (if not _the_ highest). While software leaves no mess, hardware - boards and chips - are very messy. I used to work in Samsung's fab in Austin, TX and I've read some very scary MSDSes. Perhaps Wired doesn't want to offend Silicon Valley?

      Perhaps she didn't read very carefully? I said this:

      "Controversies rage about whether environmental factors - such as mercury and other chemicals in universally administered vaccines, industrial pollutants in air and water, and even certain foods - act as catalysts that trigger the disorder. Bernard Rimland, the first psychologist to oppose Bettelheim and promote the idea that autism was organic in origin, has become a leading advocate for intensified investigation in this area. The father of an autistic son, Rimland has been instrumental in marshaling medical expertise and family data to create better assessment protocols... Genetic hypotheses like these don't rule out environmental factors playing a role in the rising numbers. Autism is almost certainly not caused by the action of a single gene, but by some orchestration of multiple genes that may make the developing child more susceptible to a trigger in the environment. One consequence of increased reproduction among people carrying some of these genes might be to boost 'genetic loading' in successive generations - leaving them more vulnerable to threats posed by toxins in vaccines, candida, or any number of agents lurking in the industrialized world."

      I didn't write this article to *rule out* the possibility of environmental factors acting as crucial agents in triggering the disorder. I wrote it to *include* the possibility that something very unusual is happening in the Valley in future research.

      > According to her, there is very little research literature that expressed parental traits are any indication of autism.

      If what you mean is that she said there is "very little research" to indicate that the majority of cases of autism have some genetic basis, she is wrong. All of the major genetic studies of the last 15 years -- and I've read them -- indicate that autism has a genetic basis in most cases. There certainly does need to be more research done along these lines -- which was why I wrote the article in the first place.

      This was the conclusion of a major survey of 30 years of autism genetics studies published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology in February 2000 by Michael Rutter:

      "The past 30 years has seen tremendous advances in the understanding of the role of genetic influences in autism. We have come a long way from the views of the early 1970s when even behavior geneticists doubted that there were any genetic effects to be investigated in autism. We now know that, despite that early skepticism, genetic influences are hugely important in the liability to autism, that they involve the operation of several interacting genes, and that the liability extends well beyond traditional concepts of a handicapping disorder usually accompanied by some degree of mental retardation, and often with the development of epilepsy in adolescence. In concluding this paper, I have tried to look ahead into the next 30 years. I think there is every reason to be optimistic about the likelihood that the genetic research will lead to biological studies that will, at last, delineate the underlying causal neural processes and that their understanding will have substantial clinical benefits."

    2. Re:Wired leaves out the most suspected cause by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      She thought that the article left out the most commonly suspected cause of autism, which is environmental pollution. According to her, there is very little research literature that expressed parental traits are any indication of autism.

      There is also no proven link between environmental pollution and autism. Until there is some real evidence evertyhing is speculation. As far as it being the "most common suspected cause", well, a lot of people believed that stress causes ulcers until the real cause was found.

  237. So nerds are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's new?

  238. Re:The problem with diagnosing by one's behavior.. by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
    Damn, I identify _so_ strongly with the story you tell in that first account you told in Sweden. So much of it echoes my own experience- in particular, you touch on something that periodically affects me- the "For me, especially when several unpredictable things happen one after the other, I feel like my understanding of the world is collapsing... as if I am trying to hold onto something very important and it is becoming slippery in my hands." That describes what I go through very well. It's like a 'little things go wrong and all of a sudden I'm fighting off huge amounts of upsetness' thing, seemingly not justified by the situation- generally this comes on if I have to seriously re-adjust some part of my plans. For instance, I do digital audio recording and need a new sound input card, as what I've got isn't capable enough. I thought it was, started working with it, started having problems, and got WAY upset at the delay and failure of this first card to do what it's advertised as doing. It seemed way bigger than 'I got ripped off, my work's on hold until January when I can buy my way out of the problem'.

    I have to wonder- how much of this is autism/asperger's, and how much is simply hangover from years of feeling compelled to have 'all your shit together'? If I get to a point where I'm really very confident and secure, will this tendency go away, or is it something I just need to learn to cope with because it's part of how my mind works? It's damn unpleasant, I can tell you that. It sucks to have to deal with 'inappropriate' emotional hysterics, even though I can avoid acting out on 'em I still have to feel them and it's frustrating to consider that NTs may not get hit with that kind of thing. I don't know how to describe it- people say oh, everyone has bad days or whatever, but it's peculiarly frustrating to fight off MASSIVE panic and 'wrongness' over something that you logically know isn't all that major.

    Anyhow- thanks for telling a little about yourself- it's spooky how similar your story is to mine :)

  239. Autists are retards. Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a moron. Face it. I could make your boss hate you in less than a week's time and you wouldn't even know why. Poor sucker.

  240. You know what's really sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Is you misfits becoming all macho und Uebermensch about not needing all the macho and Uebermensch stuff. The stink of denial is too much to bear.



    I really hope some of you grow up and stop believing all the bullshit you're being fed. Remember, you are not a wonderful and unique snowflake. As for the rest, you can all die slowly and miserably for all I care. Nobody will notice the difference anyway.



    To the editors: salut and felicitations. /. has become an autoerotic circle jerk for not-too-bright teenage boys with a fascist leaning. And the mod system sucks. Swell job guys.

    1. Re:You know what's really sad? by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      "Is you misfits becoming all macho und Uebermensch about not needing all the macho and Uebermensch stuff. The stink of denial is too much to bear."

      The people you refer to are poseurs. Their concept of macho is completely different than the concept of macho for a football player, for instance. Either way it's still just macho poseing(sp, ok beat me).

      "I really hope some of you grow up and stop believing all the bullshit you're being fed."

      They want the bullshit, not information.

      "Remember, you are not a wonderful and unique snowflake."

      They will grasp at anything so they feel that they are unique or special. They crave it because it detracts from how lame and ordinary they actually are. It gives em the warm fuzzies.

      "As for the rest, you can all die slowly and miserably for all I care. Nobody will notice the difference anyway."

      A bit harsh. One question I put to people sums this concept up... 'Will you be remembered by anyone 100 years from now?' Answer? 'Most likely not.'

      "To the editors: salut and felicitations. /. has become an autoerotic circle jerk for not-too-bright teenage boys with a fascist leaning. And the mod system sucks."

      This is true enough. Slashdot was once seen as the place for the clued in to come, post, and rant. The lemmings that followed are mostly wet behind the ears college boys that just come to beat their chests and howl in the forest.

      "Swell job guys."

      It's not the editors fault. They just put it out there, and if it's misused by idiots they aren't to blame. All of us are for suffering their wild-eye'd idealism, stupidity, and fanaticism.

  241. Bullshit bullshit: van Gogh didn't cut off his ear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you perpetuating MYTH? There is pretty solid evidence that van Gogh didn't cut off his own ear. Why are you regurgitating stuff that sounds profound but you have no clue about whatsoever, and getting modded up for it to boot? Moo!

  242. That's me too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I DO feel relieved to know Im not the only one in the world like that.

  243. A point missed by other_things_to_do · · Score: 1

    I wanted to bring up something that I think a lot of people are missing here. A lot of people erroneously assume that if you somehow reduce the abnormal behavior, be it autism or anger, you will reduce that what makes them great. Referring to the case above I can say that Mike Tyson is not a great boxer because he is angry. In fact it's quite the opposite. Mike Tyson would be a better boxer if he learned to deal with his anger. Just because one treats the abberant behavior doesn't mean that the underlying talent is reduced along with it. Mike Tyson is the boxer he is because he is a natural, not because he is angry. If he was a pissed off yahoo he would have been beaten to a pulp a long time ago.
    Now, supposing his problems with anger/agression/whatever were treated at some point earlier in his career I submit to you that he would have been a phenomenal boxer.

    and Einstien was not a genius because he acted eccentricly.

  244. Your fucked up life is your fucked up problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's disgusting to see how people rush to whatever the top bullshitters come up with to make your miserable lives feel better. Let me try to make this very clear for those of you who still feel like thinking for themselves: YOUR WORLD IS SHRINKING AND YOU ARE DOING SHIT NOTHING ABOUT IT.



    You are not the victims, you are the perpetrators, and the longer you maintain this fairy bullshit about a "new race" or "being wired in a certain way" or being such a sensitive son-of-a-bitch you are SHIRKING YOUR FUCKING RESPONSIBLITIES.



    Does this get through to any of you jackasses? If just one person understands what I'm saying that's enough. Too bad that one person will never get to read my comment because it'll be moderated to oblivion. After all, denial is also a river in Egypt.

    1. Re:Your fucked up life is your fucked up problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get what you're saying! I'm off to the bar to drink myself silly despite knowing how many grains of sand there are in egypt after seeing a satellite photo of them for 3 seconds.

  245. Not rocket science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All people feel alienated, sad, lonely, lovelorn from time to time. This is not rocket science. Geeks who don't understand any of that are just dumb. Dumb or lazy or both.

  246. Re:The MMR Vaccine vs. Blood Tests at Birth by texchanchan · · Score: 1

    From Scientific American (April 25, 2001): Researchers have found differences in the blood chemistry of newborns which may predict whether they become autistic. This difference occurs long before any vaccination.

    Excerpt from the article: "Scientists have identified blood markers that may be associated with the development of autism and mental retardation later in childhood.... Karin B. Nelson of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and her colleagues studied archived neonatal blood samples from children who developed normally, as well as those who went on to develop autism, mental retardation or cerebral palsy. The team found that the blood of children who later developed autism or mental retardation contained significantly elevated levels of neural growth factors in contrast to the blood from the other two groups."

  247. CAN PEOPLE READ? by SLP · · Score: 2, Informative
    I am a speech-language pathologist in the San Francisco Bay Area; and I primarily work with students with autism in grades K-6. While your article was informative and thorough, either people failed to read the entire article, they have reading comprehension problems, or the article failed to illustrate just how serious a diagnosis of autism can be. After reading it, I didn't believe the latter. But I wonder how so many people could post such inane comments in response to it!

    Obviously these people have never met children or adults with autism. I work with many students that barely have any verbal language at all, cannot go 5 minutes without stimming (arms flapping, humming, running, fingers flicking), and still aren't toilet trained at age 8. While my students on the other extreme may seem higher functioning because they have normal cognitive abilities, they are sometimes more puzzling and sadder. Children with Asperger's aren't simply the geniuses of today. Because they have average to above average IQs, they are expected to perform like everyone else. But since they lack many of the skills many of us take for granted, they are truly at a disadvantage. One of my children, who happens to have brilliant tech-minded parents, cannot answer yes/no questions (he usually echoes the last few words of the questions), cannot take turns unless cued, cannot attend to speakers, he's obsessed with lining things up, and has an uncanny ability to recognize how many items are in a group instantly. However, this kid at age 4 cognitively functions at age 6-7. You can't tell me that these aren't deficits and that it won't impact him.

    I read several posts from people who simply don't know what they're talking about. And instead of responding like they think they know it all, maybe they should do some research. But I have to admit, many people have fallen victim to unqualified professionals that are too quick to slap a label on kids. I fully support current resources out there and ones trying to come online that would put parents and other professionals in contact with people who really do know what's going on, people who accept that they do not know everything, and people who continue to seek education and answers in the area of autism.

  248. Hi, I'm autistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It messed up my life.

    I'll take my five karma now. Oh, btw, I work as an engineer at boeing and have mono.

  249. Au Contraire by Analogue+Kid · · Score: 1

    daVinci spent a great deal of time drawing dragons, pasting paper wings on lizards, and cutting up dead bodies. Be assured his contemporaries found his behaviour fucking psycho. It certainly met the requisites for being 'antisocial'.

    --
    I'm a gnu world man.
  250. Some Banality for your Anality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The monkey swam through the colorful trees of the Midwestern town, dipping and diving from branch to branch and from lightpost to stoplight. He was scarcely aware of the cars passing on a nearby street as he sped through the trees. Nor were the cars aware of him - which was a good thing. A monkey loose in this quiet community would certainly cause a stir.

    The monkey dropped onto a fat tree branch and leaned heavily against the trunk, panting. He looked down at the squirrels running around on the ground and wondered how an animal could be so stupid. He gazed up at the sky and decided that Fall was coming soon. The air had begun to take on that brisk quality that wants nothing to do with Summer.

    A small bird sat on a nearby branch chirping and squawking wildly. The monkey wondered what all the commotion was about. He didn't understand birds. Were they as stupid as squirrels? Why did they eat grain? Why did they poop in mid-air? He had just about decided to ignore the annoying little bird when he noticed the squashed nest at his feet.

    "I'm sorry little bird, I didn't intent to wreck your nest. Please accept my apologies. I am truly sorry." The bird continued to chirp and squawk leaving the monkey with the vague suspicion that he wasn't being understood.

    "Little bird, you mustn't be angry with me, it was an accident." No reaction from the bird. By now it was hopping up and down, flapping its wings in quick little expenditures of fury. The bird was of average bird size. But it had weird markings: a red-orange tint to his head and shoulders but a brown and white streaked body. The monkey decided that this little ball of feathers must be retarded. He grabbed a hold of a branch and was preparing to swing when...

    "Fuck you! 'chirp," shouted the bird in a strange warbled voice.

    "Whaa what?" stamored the monkey.

    "You fucked up my nest. 'chirp. What the hell is wrong with you?"

    "I.. I.. didn't mean.. I was just swinging along and..." said the monkey.

    "Well, at least my string collection survived. I would have had to pound your ass if it hadn't." The bird was gathering together a pile of scraps of string. There was a shoelace, colored yarn, kite string, bailing rope -- all little scraps obviously collected over time.

    "So who are you?" asked the bird.

    "My name is Monkeyman," replied the monkey. "I'm not from around these parts. I'm kind of lost actually."

    "That's pretty obvious," the bird said shaking his head. "I am from around here and I gotta say, you're the first god-damned monkey I've ever seen."

    "I fear that is probably the case."

    "Well anyway, welcome to Dippsville Mr. Monkeyman. By the way, people call me Finch," said Finch, dipping a wing in introduction.

    "Pleasure to meet you Finch," Monkeyman said. "You're an odd little bird. I've never heard anyone cuss as much as you."

    "Fuck... if you don't cuss, 'Chirp! Then people don't take you seriously. Cussing makes you seem more important. It's like, you can be mad about something. But if you want people to know you're really mad, then cuss a whole bunch. People who don't cuss are not cool."

  251. ABA therapy by bbqBrain · · Score: 1

    Hmm, what are your views on ABA? It sounds like perhaps you have some reservations about it. My wife's work is really amazing to me, but I suspect it's just one brand of ABA. She's an independent therapist, and her team uses no physical restraint at all and doesn't punish the children. However, the St. Louis Special School District practices a different form of ABA, which apparently involves forceful restrain at times, among some other methods that would be considered a bit barbaric by my wife's fellow therapists.

    Anyway, I was just curious to see if you'd had any contact with ABA therapy and what you thought. Feel free to email if you like.

    BTW, I'm also scoping out a side project to create a therapy management app in Java. I'm still in the earliest stages of conception with it, but I have a couple local friends willing to help out. If you're interested at all, let me know.

    --

    One of the reasons that I became a lawyer was to avoid ever having to hire one. -SPYvSPY
    1. Re:ABA therapy by spyro · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that alt.support.autism (I am there also) would be somewhere you should investigate.

      certainly you can find out a LOT about ABA there.

      (and, given the nerd / geek population, also about jet engines built from turbos, computers, etc. :-)

  252. Don't write yourself off by Fzz · · Score: 1
    Most of the so called Balanced people, arent very intelligent. Sure they are very balanced, but because of their extreme balance, while they may be normal, how many Balanced people are truely intelligent?

    ...

    I agree with you, people are very specialized, just like good code, is very specialized. When you try to be a jack of all trades, you are always a master of none.

    I'm sorry but I think you're being defeatist. If you don't even try, you'll never succeed.

    I'm not autistic, but I was the ultimate shy kid. My mother pulled me out of kindergarten because I'd just cry in the corner waiting for her to return rather than play with the other kids. All through school I had perhaps two good friends who were similar to me, but we were always the outsiders. When I was 12, I got mumps, and went partially deaf. I was always the one who did just enough to get by in exams, but never so much that I'd really stand out, because then I'd get beaten up.

    When I went to University, I didn't know what the expected level was, and accidentally got eight straight A grades (the next person in the year got two). But this was University, and I didn't get beaten up - instead everyone wanted me to help them with their classes. I went to parties, but mostly felt completely out of place, and drank way too much. Gradually I started to feel accepted, although I was never in the "in crowd". And slowly my confidence grew, and my social skills grew.

    I went on to do a PhD (good escape from the real world), started to be involved in student societies, and meet non-computer people. Still I was 24 before I really went out on a proper date. I ended up running the mountaineering society, which was a good way to meet people while pretending not to care.

    For the last few years I've been working for one of the best Internet research labs in the world. I've authored two books, many technical papers, presented at numerous conferences, written quite a number of internet standards, and even given a presentation in front of 2000 people at a conference plenary session. Not bad for someone who was terrified to be noticed. In the last 6 months I've written 25,000 lines of code (I think it all works too), and have a great team of people working for me. I'm married to a beautiful woman (who happens to be a scientist, but isn't a geek at all), and have a small son.

    But I'm still nervous to answer the phone or ask directions :-)

    My point though, is that age and experience can really change you. If you put your mind to it, you probably can become sociable, although it's a long slow process. And you don't have to become stupid to do it. There's only yourself holding you back.

    Good luck.

    -Fzz

    1. Re:Don't write yourself off by other_things_to_do · · Score: 1

      Your post is huge.

      This topic might be associated with disability but there is one thing thing humans excel at is in their resilience. One thing I find amazing about humanity is that while life itself is quite fragile, it is also a source of amazing depth.

      Fzz, if you got the time/motivation drop me a line. I am always interested in how people manage to overcome.

  253. AUTISM IS REAL by casey_66 · · Score: 1

    AND THERE ARE NO DRUGS FOR IT!!!! get it through your head, fool, NO ONE said anything about 'cramming pills' down autists throats!!!

  254. This is how it starts.... by FattyBoeBatty · · Score: 1

    From the article...

    After eight years of interventions - behavioral training, occupational therapy, speech therapy - Leah is a happy, upbeat 11-year-old who downloads her favorite songs by the hundreds. And she is still deeply autistic.

    The RIAA's next target: autistic kids.

    --fatty

  255. Where did you get THAT idea? by casey_66 · · Score: 1

    >It's a genuine, empirically verifiable form of >brain damage that *primarily* leads to severe >retardation of social skills (and that, I can >assure you, is a very broad category of skills), >but to other forms of retardation as well. Perhaps I'm being picky but... Brain Damage? Empirically verifiable? Gee, you know something all those researchers and Doctors don't huh?
    It's a brain disorder and it manifests itself within a range of symptoms. "Brain Damage" implies some kind of destruction or other physical restructuring that can be seen. What is called "brain damage" refers to pre-natal or neo-natal trauma caused by extenuating circumstances that could have been avoided or prevented.
    IF this is true of autism they haven't figured it out yet.
    Ignoring for the moment the highly unscientific and inflammatory use of the word, it is simply not true that the behavior of an autist is indistinguishable from that of someone considered "a retard" as you so charmingly put it. (DUDE, what is the POINT of being idiotically rude?) Else, they would never have noticed or classified autism as something seperate from "retards"
    you must be confused from the fact that between 70%-80% of autists also have some measure of mental retardation. Not all, but most. The fact that some don't is proof enough that it is a SEPERATE disorder.

  256. That site is not good by casey_66 · · Score: 1

    it says on the site you give that the following is a SAMPLE.
    Try this site:
    http://www.autism-society.org/whatisautism/autis m. html
    if you want to know something, go to the source, and pay attention to the answer.

  257. Re:read the article DOWN WITH THE GEEK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's time somebody made the distinction between geeks and clever, able, technically or scientifically minded people.

    The property 'geek' can be applied to any individual; in the UK people consider you to be a geek if you wear old concert tee-shirts and spend most of your time playing Quake.

    I say, probably controversially (although hell, nobody reads all the way down here, do they?), down with the geek. Lets have 1 term for the property of technical excellence and 1 term for the property of unbalanced heavy metal listening quake players.

  258. Good Programmers Have The Autism Gene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many programmers are socially inept creatures, perhaps because of a mild degree of autism (Ausperger's syndrome (sp?) - which Turing had). Normally, such folk don't reproduce because they can't find a mate. But, the IT revolution brought big rewards. Big rewards attract mates. Hence a higher proportion of dorks reproduce, increasing the chance that their offspring will be autistic (with respect to the general population).

  259. Please, please, please exercise caution! by webdoyenne · · Score: 2, Interesting
    When my youngest son was two, we enrolled him in a small, excellent Montessori preschool two mornings a week. His older brother had gone there for three years and thrived. Alas, for the younger one, things did not go so well. The child was refusing to participate in any activities whatsoever and would sit, eyes closed and completely oblivious, outside the group during circle-type activities. On the playground, all he would do is pull a wagon around and around the perimeter, near the fences.


    The staff did not know what to do with him, so they called in a psychologist (with our permission), to observe him. After a few other tests, this woman diagnosed him as autistic, and suggested we enroll him in the county-sponsored "early intervention" program, as he would never be able to survive in a regular classroom.


    Now, at the time, I had only a superficial understanding of autism, but my bullshit meter was redlining. This little boy was (and is) a very affectionate child. I still remember one particular day, when he was still a toddler, he climbed into the lap of some sad-looking older woman in a doctor's waiting room and attempted to engage her in "conversation." Her whole epxression and mood seemed to change.


    And this kid, although extremely stubborn and sometimes difficult to manage, was a joy to have around the house. I had real fears about involving him with "the system" before I did more checking around.


    He has always been an unusual child in many ways. He could tell time perfectly at age 2, and do instant conversions in his head for time zones around the world. His brother found this amusing enough to display him to his friends, like a trained animal. At 3, the child could read maps accurately and navigate from the back seat of the car with a county road atlas. BY the time he was five, he knew all the presidents of the U.S., in order, with their vice presidents and cabinet members plus other obscure historical trivia.


    At any rate, I went nuts doing the research thing...read about Asperger's and considered it briefly...but it still didn't ring true. One day, it occurred to me that my son was always asking, "What?" "What?" and we were so used to this that we'd repeat ourselves without thinking. I wondered if he might have a hearing problem, so I took him to a speech/hearing therapist for an evaluation. His hearing was perfect, but he turned out to have some kind of strange, cognitive speech disorder that was frustrating his attempts to process language.


    Essentially, this kid had learned language like parrots learn -- by mimickry. (Back when I was doing Internet training in the early 90s, I used to joke to my classes that my son could make modem noises before he could talk.) Because we were older parents (40) when he was born, and because his brother was 9 years older, he actually had a very advanced vocabulary. Therefore, although he would regularly use words inappropriately, we thought it was "cute" and never suspected any sort of a language problem. The "What?" "What?" business was his attempt to get us to explain something to him in a different way, so that he could maybe understand it.


    Our HMO at the time was perfectly happy to send this kid for unlimited CAT scans and MRIs, but balked at paying for speech therapy. We went to war with them, and they eventually caved. After six months of speech therapy three times a week -- the therapist essentially taught him how to relearn language -- he was absolutely a different child. We switched preschools, and he thrived in the new one...happily participating in activities, etc. By the time he got to "regular" school, there were no problems whatsoever. I am thankful every day that we caught this problem and made it go away before he got into elementary school.


    The child is 10 now; he reads at an 11th grade level, writes beautifully and is a whiz at math (which he doesn't find real interesting, alas). He still absorbs facts upon facts about American history, but his true obsession these days is sports. He can name every major league baseball and football stadium, knows when they were built, what their names used to be before "naming rights" took over, knows the records and ages of most major league players as well as which teams they have played for, can tell you the history of every manager and coach... Has both the ESPN and Sports Illustrated almanacs and sucks up an alarming amount of information. Is regularly challenged by his brother, and is almost always right.


    He also has friends -- a couple good ones; he's not the belle of the ball -- and he has the respect of his classmates, who regularly choose him for things like student council and reading the "news" on the school TV program. The teachers are all crazy about him. Even the school custodian, an eastern European emigre who speaks with a heavy accent, tells me, "That boy is special. Gonna be president someday, and I'll be a citizen and vote for him."


    Yeah, yeah...I'm a proud mom. He is, of course, my youngest chick and I love him to pieces. But I still get the creeps when I think of what might have happened had I let "the system" get hold of him at such an early age. Please, please, please...get second and third opinions. Sounds like you're already doing a lot of research. Keep doing it. Talk to speech therapists, not just shrinks.

  260. The Hermit by seven89 · · Score: 1

    This discussion brings to mind the Tarot trump card called "The Hermit", which is a picture of an obviously reclusive guy holding a lamp from which a bright light shines, symbolizing, perhaps, the gift to the world of knowledge discovered by a person who withdrew from the world. There is a similar motif in the lives of many mystics and prophets such as Nietzsche's Zarathustra who came down from his mountain, or Jesus of Nazareth whose teaching career didn't start until after he had spent 40 days in the wilderness.

    1. Re:The Hermit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'd actually _read_ Zarathrustra instead of chirping about mysticism, you would know that the point of the story (one of the points, whatever) is that virtually nobody understands what this man is trying to say. Or as Shakespeare put it, to be or not to be, that is the question.

  261. Cali has the Highest vaccine rate in the country. by RodeoBoy · · Score: 1

    Hmmmmmm.

  262. did you read what I wrote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I said that many of the cases will be overdiagnosis. I didn't say ALL!

  263. Passing the Buck by MilitantNerd · · Score: 1

    Public school teachers and educators are unable to handle the real issues, so they diagnose (or pressure doctors into diagnosing) such conditions as ADHD, autism, and Aspergers Syndrome. Any child who doesn't fit in to the social straitjacket becomes labelled in some way. The peers use such terms as nerd, geek, dork, dweeb, and fag. (And, in poor black communities, "acting white".) The teachers use labels such as ADHD, ADD, OCD, and AS.

    Thus, the educational establishment medicalizes inconvenient personalities, to be labelled with the syndrome of the week. It's their way of stamping someone as inferior, and since it's a medical condition, that person (or his or her parents) isn't to blame. No-fault labelling. Thus, the school ships off the inconvenient kids to other schools, or (often ineffective) Special Education programs.

    There is no question that many of these conditions do exist, especially in their more severe forms. The milder forms are the real problem. The lack of objective tests makes it easy for educators and other special interest groups to pressure doctors and psychologists into lowering the bar. A society that has made buck-passing a fine art has no right to be surprised at the rapid increase in reported cases of ADHD and AS.

    The educational establishment has been so out of touch with the realities of young people, in favor of their own pet theories. Schools have supposedly become freer, more open, and less restrictive in the last 30 years. That couldn't be further from the truth! School is paradise for jocks, bullies, "good old boys", rich kids with rich parents, and smarmy little political whores. For individualists, and those more interested in learning than socializing, it is hell. The emphasis is on self-esteem (of the in-crowd only), socialization, popularity, populism, the tyranny of the majority, lax (and inconsistent) discipline, and the replacement of morality by the fad of the week.

    Look at what modern schools teach children:

    Power, wealth, fame, and popularity are everything.

    For boys: physical size, muscle, and athletic ability.

    For girls: blonde hair and the anorexic model look.

    Image is everything.

    Rules exist to be broken.

    Cheating is OK, getting caught isn't.

    Status is a zero-sum game.

    The quickest way to build your status is to torment those below you on the Great Ladder of Life.

    The purpose of life is to prostitute yourself to various fads and fashions.

    Never question anything, just fake it, and bullshit your way through life.

    Knowledge, no matter how favored by the teachers, really counts for nothing.

    To be "different" means being inferior, and this includes persons who value knowledge, who have little tolerance for fads or bullshit, who may be sexually unorthodox ("screaming faggots"), or those who appear weak (i.e. poor, unpopular, un-macho, sensitive, neurotic).

    Given this, I can also see why some kids want to be declared as AS, and why some parents want the same for their kids, to avoid the hell of mainstream public schools!

  264. "Geek Syndrome" Clarification by cyixiong · · Score: 1

    With reference to the "geek syndrome" article, I had noticed many postings that may need further clarification. Writing as someone on the spectrum, I hope those of you really interested in pursuing this issue will take the effort to understand in more details. Surely receiving a direct account surely beats receiving second or third-hand accounts.

    In short, autism does exist. It had existed before in history and seemed to have played a pivotal role in influencing human history. It has biological roots and quite a number of researchers do take it seriously. Some of the reference below might have good use.

    Notes:
    AC = Autism & Cousin Spectrum People
    NT = Neurotypical - normal people
    Shadow AC = Someone with quite some AC traits but do not fulfill dx criteria


    A booklet I use to introduce others to autism in real life
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/autism_mediation/fil es/Introduction_to_Autism.zip

    Heuristics on Diagnosing ACs (if you find it strange, then you don't have AC)
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Personal_Discourses/ message/102


    Articles on AC

    - About Political Animals
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Personal_Discourses/ message/107
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Personal_Discourses/ message/108

    - NT Strangeness, a joke I sent to the NT Research website
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Personal_Discourses/ message/48

    - Reply to "Stamp out Antidisabilitarianism?", a recent message
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Personal_Discourses/ message/106


    Refer to:
    http://eric.webhop.net for more writings
    http://sociologistics.webhop.org for a society project I founded


    http://www.shifth.mistral.co.uk/autism/mind.htm

    People with the capacity for great depth of interest, adapted for pathfinding at the edge of the known, are poor at elaborate low risk/low gain social activity. This is because language and self are the most dense and complex areas of the interest system, requiring maximum breadth of modelling. We postulate that self and language tasks as they are habitually performed may require more breadth of arousal than is available in some interest systems. Many of the problems in relating to society experienced by people described as autistic are the result of different modalities of language use and of the modelling of the self, other and the words between.

    The other extreme of this normal distribution of types of mind consists of people with very broad but not very deep minds. This category includes those most highly rewarded by society, chat show hosts and politicians. Such people do not posses outstanding specific talents, but have great ability to model other people, giving them power to manipulate social, rather than actual, situations.

    We cannot think of Autism as an illness for which a cure can be discovered [17]. We do however observe in people described as Autistic a cast of mind that renders them unsuitable for conventional forms of employment. However, we see this economic frame of reference as holding the key to a happy outcome. In benign circumstances, people with the capacity for deep concentration have a great capacity to learn skills which are beyond the broad mind. Mass production culture may have deprived the deep minded of occasion to contribute to society as the pathfinders to physical resources, but it has opened a vast spectrum of new opportunities.

    It is the deep mind that has the capacity to read, understand and apply the technical manual, to enter into the intricate labyrinth of the logic of the integrated circuit and the computer program. It is the forager mind, insensitive to the way everybody knows things should be done, which creates the paradigm transforming technologies. Appropriate education would enable many ingenious and creative people to be part of things, who are now totally excluded from the mainstream of society. Education based on understanding could transform this apparent problem into an opportunity.


    Every population has a surface, however diffuse. This fact of topology firmly drives brain evolution. Autism in particular is primarily the result of adaptation to the inevitable sparseness of population outer regions. This yields not only autism, but an autism spectrum. It also gives rise to the great variety of autistic forms and genes. These conclusions sharply limit the possible clarity of autism diagnosis and preclude any simplistic "silver-bullet" response to the rigors of autism. The theory accounts for the observed correlation of autism and gender, and predicts a correlation with latitude of ancestral homeland. Autism emerges as a major feature of brain evolution: It is generally not a disease. Autism has been with humans as long as humans have been and has markedly influenced human history. It evidently has shaped forms of religious practice.

    http://attictwo.best.vwh.net/AASCEND/TOPO/topotheo ry.html

    Main Theory Page:
    http://attictwo.best.vwh.net/AASCEND/TOPO/


    Good resources and or links to multiple websites
    http://www.hunnybee.com/autism
    http://www.tonyattwood.com/
    http://www.autismconnect.org/

    Joke:
    http://isnt.autistics.org/index.html


    Other links:
    - Autism may hold key to mastering maths
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000343180237640&a mp;rtmo=lS7bwvbt&atmo=99999999&pg=/et/99/3 /22/naut22.html

    - Study finds autism in girls being overlooked
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000343180237640&a mp;rtmo=VFj4FV1x&atmo=99999999&pg=/et/98/1 1/21/naut21.html

    - Professor Snyder's most recent publications
    Contains data about autism too
    http://www.centreforthemind.com/publications/publi cations.htm

  265. Aborting Bill Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Mrs. Smith, here are the results of your amnio. There's a 1 in
    10 chance that you'll have ... the next Bill Gates. Would you like to
    have an abortion?'



    Tell me that's not an argument for pro-choice! :-)

  266. Brave New World ... by SimCash · · Score: 1
    Read Brave New World and be afraid.

    If the freedom to select one's mate based on common interests is leading to a slow-motion form of genetic engineering, and if higher autism is the price paid by the tech workers (the creative side, not the assembly line side), what price do office workers pay? And drug dealers? We might like to joke that the tech-wiz can destroy your credit rating overnight by hacking your bank accounts, but children born in a violent subset can clean out your chest cavity with the same ease. Class warfare, 21st century style?

    1. Re:Brave New World ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the freedom to select one's mate based on common interests is leading to a slow-motion form of genetic engineering,

      This has been going on for decades already, at least in the Western world.

      and if higher autism is the price paid by the tech workers (the creative side, not the assembly line side), what price do office workers pay? And drug dealers? We might like to joke that the tech-wiz can destroy your credit rating overnight by hacking your bank accounts, but children born in a violent subset can clean out your chest cavity with the same ease. Class warfare, 21st century style?

      Again, this is nothing new. Recognition of this form of class warfare is just starting, though.

    2. Re:Brave New World ... by SimCash · · Score: 1
      It is the recognition of this breeding selection effect and the dialog that needs to be conducted that is important. A chilling interview between a British female reporter and a pro-Taliban woman in Afghanistan revealed how intuitively the 3rd world understands this, and how much in denial the West is. I paraphrase
      Naive Western reporter: " How do you feel about having your sons die in this war?"

      Oppresses Afghani women: Proud. I may have 15 children [she is really proud of this fact]. You may have one or two. How can you think that you will win out?

      Naive Wetern reporter: [speechless]

      [Remember, I am paraphrasing here. Replace Afghani women with any third world mother, or even a mother from the redneck-hillbilly-welfare-mom class in the US. Replace the Naive Western Reporter with any geek class, including Yuppies. Extrapolate. Understand why colonization of Mars is critical, since the skill set necessary to get on such missions is a convenient selection method against stupidity and superstition (one would hope).]

  267. Oriental Despotism (Re:Brave New World ...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A chilling interview between a British female reporter and a pro-Taliban woman in Afghanistan revealed how intuitively the 3rd world understands this, and how much in denial the West is.

    1. Naive Western reporter: "How do you feel about having your sons die in this war?"

    Translation: Where I come from, life is precious, at least to those who care for life more than death, freedom more than slavery, and humanity more than god.

    1. Oppresses Afghani women: Proud. I may have 15 children [she is really proud of this fact].

    Translation: They may be starving, but spiritual health is more important anyway. It is an honor to starve for Allah, the Taliban, and the local lords and priests. It is an honor to starve while our own Lord Jabba the Hut gorges himself. When Allah wills his next famine or plague, all I ask is for the chance for myself and my 35 children to feed our great lords with our own flesh.

    Compared to god/king/country shit like that, is selfishness really that bad?

    1. You may have one or two. How can you think that you will win out?

    Translation: I hate and envy you for all your food, clothes, houses, cars, TVs, computers, and video games. I am too lazy and stupid to want to think for myself, or better myself, so I'll be content as a starving abused slave, and just follow the blessed leaders of my tribe. Because I hate you so much, I also hate everything good about your culture, such as democracy and women's rights.

    Remember, I am paraphrasing here. Replace Afghani women with any third world mother, or even a mother from the redneck-hillbilly-welfare-mom class in the US. Replace the Naive Western Reporter with any geek class, including Yuppies. Extrapolate. Understand why colonization of Mars is critical, since the skill set necessary to get on such missions is a convenient selection method against stupidity and superstition (one would hope).

    I think a contraceptive virus might be a better idea. Particularly one that affects religious and nationalistic idiots the most; perhaps it can target the so-called "god center" of the brain. Even if this said virus affects everyone equally, and makes it impossible to have more than two (or maybe three) kids, that itself is good enough.