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."
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.
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...?
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
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.
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.
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.
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 >
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."
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.
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.
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.
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..
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
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
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?
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.
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).
(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.
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]
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).
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
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.
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
... 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.
Speak for yourself, girlie-man
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 --
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.
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...
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.