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."
hmm.. I wonder why that is... (as I read the article with my laptop in my lap)
...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)
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.
-
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?
Fight Spammers!
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
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.
And you thought War Driving with the Kids was harmless Saturday fun...
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
i d_1687000/1687967.stm) It seems as though there are considerable vested interests on the side of those in support of the MMR 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/news
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.
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!
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
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.
...to be a really good geek, you have to be just a little bit autistic.
... well, okay, if I go into that, then that makes all men autistic...can't do that now can we?
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
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?
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..
Learn about pinball machines on www.flippers.be
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
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.
/. population could be considered autistic.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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."
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."
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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?!
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
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
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.
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.
Thank God most geeks don't get laid very often:-)
-- André Dahlqvist
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.
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
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.
You should never let geeks interbreed. I'm just surprised they breed at all...!
"Information wants to be paid"
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
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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/
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.
"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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
see how they weigh up:
Normal People:
round them should just read their minds, damn it!
basis
a cool word, regardless of whether those products
are any different from anything else out there or
not
inquisitiveness of a mushroom, and a faith in
simple interfaces that the religions of the world
can only stand and marvel at.
Autistic people:
symbolic logic
-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.
groups. Large groups put the mind on overload.
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...
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)
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/
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
Seastead this.
... 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Seastead this.
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.
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
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.
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
is the suprising revelation that there are more children with autism or that programmers are having children?
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.
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.
... these are the important questions. Unless something of higher precedence demands action NOW.
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?
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
- 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".
- 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.
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
hawk
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.
I saw this in the Wired article:
/.) experimented with this idea in his latest book, calling it "Focus". The ramifications where not totally positive, to say the least.
"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
garyr
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
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
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
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
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.
Seastead this.
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
Look him up.
Rich
I want that on a T-shirt. Thinkgeek, are you listening?
Rich
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
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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