Originally Posted by James50

The smartest person I have ever personally known lives in Silicon Valley and has a profoundly autistic 21 year old son. He is a scientist and has the brainpower and motivation to do a lot of research on this. He is convinced that the trigger is environmental. He is quite angry with Autism Speaks for the way it continues to devote large amounts of money to genetic research when what is needed is long term longitudinal studies to determine the environmental cause. He has told me Autism Speaks is a "disaster". Unfortunately, the genetic research is very glamorous, whereas the longitudinal studies of environment are very tedious and gritty.

Based on the age of onset, autism must be caused by environmental factors in utero or in the first year of life. We don't know what those factors are but this timing explains why there has been such a focus on vaccines.

James50

Arguing that this is environmental is all fine and well, but the fact that this condition tends to run in families does nothing to support that. Making it environmental tends to relieve us of implied guilt for passing these tendencies on to our children. I know that my biological daughter has the same tendencies that I do, and to a greater, though still not dramatic, degree. If I had known before the fact that I might be biologically responsible for fathering an autistic child, I'm not sure how I would have reacted. As it is, she is no more impacted than I am.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Arguing that this is environmental is all fine and well, but the fact that this condition tends to run in families does nothing to support that. Making it environmental tends to relieve us of implied guilt for passing these tendencies on to our children. I know that my biological daughter has the same tendencies that I do, and to a greater, though still not dramatic, degree. If I had known before the fact that I might be biologically responsible for fathering an autistic child, I'm not sure how I would have reacted. As it is, she is no more impacted than I am.

It can only be environmental, including environmental causes of genetic mutations. This disease hardly existed before recent huge expansion in the chemical industry and other pollution factors. It could not have come from our great grandparents.

Originally Posted by Odin

Don't believe the hysterical "autism epidemic" BS. the "epidemic" is simply that more people are being properly diagnosed. In fact, most people were completely ignorant of high-functioning forms of Autism before the 1990s, Asperger's was not a recognized diagnosis until 1994.

I am extremely offended by your insinuation that autistics are close-minded and prejudiced.

Good. I'm glad you are offended.

I didn't say it; I was paraphrasing as best I could the definition I heard on the Newshour. And it's the researchers who said this is a recent epidemic.

My contribution to the discussion was my suggestion that an epidemic of mild autism might be affecting our politics. But there's no research to support that idea, since it is just my speculation.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Well, like most mental conditions, autism is not a black and white issue. It's a range of atypical mental conditions, atypical only in the sense that the defined condition is not common. There is also a huge difference in degree from minor to devastating. There is a test for potential inclusion on the autism spectrum called the Autism Spectrum Quotient. I've take the test more than once, and tend to get about a 32. What this means is arguable.

I love taking tests, but that question (whether I love taking tests) wasn't on the test.

I scored 26, but at times in my life I would have scored higher.
The test seems not to bear much relation to autism though. It is usually a very serious condition in which you can't focus on other people or even a task for any longer than a few seconds. It is not the same as introversion.

I am INTP or INFP.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There are a few highly paid fields where being a bit autistic is a plus - software development being the most obvious.

I know a shitload of software developers. As near as I can tell the only "plus" is being from India and speaking really poor english.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

This disease hardly existed before recent huge expansion in the chemical industry and other pollution factors.

Did you miss Odin's point that that might not be true? It might just be that what has changed is the prevailing diagnosis, not anything that's being diagnosed.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Did you miss Odin's point that that might not be true? It might just be that what has changed is the prevailing diagnosis, not anything that's being diagnosed.

I posted a link to the UC Davis study whose conclusion was that the increasing incidence could not be explained by more inclusive diagnosis. The incidence has exploded in our lifetime. There is no such thing as a genetic epidemic.

James50

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

My father (born 1914) was certainly in the autism spectrum somewhere. He had the anti-social traits and some of the unexplainable math capabilities that have been associated with autism. He connected with people through music but not so much on a personal level. I have some of those traits myself, though not to the same degree. Neither of us was considered autistic, because no one was in our youths. I doubt anyone would consider either of us close-minded, though we certainly tend(ed) to trust our own judgment above that of others..

My mom suspects that her dad, a 1917 cohort, had Asperger's. It certainly seem to run on my mom's side.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

A good and valid point. Didn't you go to school, Odin, during the Bush administration? And didn't you get some form of financial aid (a clear pay-off) from the federal government under Bush during that time?

Clearly, all your statements are being made at the behest of your paymaster, Karl Rove. After all, you have a clear, financial connection to his organization.


...see how silly that argument is?

That's a red herring. People don't get or lose Pell Grant eligibility based on, say, what their major is or what their political views are.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Are all those with autism considered anti-social and not having empathy? My 7 year old nephew is classified as autistic, has a perfect photographic mind (he can see something in passing and a month later draw it in full detail on his etch and sketch), is musical and probably will be an expert in math.

Without a doubt he has trouble communicating his feelings and is a loner...but out of all my nephews I relate to him most because of his sensitivity to other peoples feelings. I don't want to box him in, but he's probably a fellow INFJ and seems to know and detect what others feel without even having a conversation with them. He is also extremely bothered and hurt by the tears and cries of others, especially babies. It's amazing seeing how he interacts with babies. He stares at them, knowingly as if staring into their souls and they stop crying around him (I haven't seen this deep of a connection with him among his peers.)

FYI, he craves stability, structure and routine but I highly doubt he will grow up to be close minded. This is no joke...but I would trust him to make better decisions then some truly close minded folks in politics (who act like they are 7 years old)

HOLY CRAP, that bolded part sounds like me!

I think a lot of oft-asserted notions involving autistics lacking empathy are very misleading because they are often based on testing young kids, not adults.

Originally Posted by James50

My information about this issue is that there is indeed an epidemic. In particular, a study at UC Davis has shown that there is more autism than can be explained by simply more inclusive diagnosis. You can follow this link to a Huff Po article and on to the MIND institute at UC Davis. Because of this increase, autism is not traceable to genetics alone as you cannot have a genetic epidemic. There have to be environmental causes which are yet undiscovered.



James50

David Kirby is a quack in the same category as Andrew Wakefield.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It can only be environmental, including environmental causes of genetic mutations. This disease hardly existed before recent huge expansion in the chemical industry and other pollution factors. It could not have come from our great grandparents.

How would we know? The less socially adept would also be less likely to procreate - especially in the class of people who get noticed by historians.

Originally Posted by James50

The smartest person I have ever personally known lives in Silicon Valley and has a profoundly autistic 21 year old son. He is a scientist and has the brainpower and motivation to do a lot of research on this. He is convinced that the trigger is environmental. He is quite angry with Autism Speaks for the way it continues to devote large amounts of money to genetic research when what is needed is long term longitudinal studies to determine the environmental cause. He has told me Autism Speaks is a "disaster". Unfortunately, the genetic research is very glamorous, whereas the longitudinal studies of environment are very tedious and gritty.

Based on the age of onset, autism must be caused by environmental factors in utero or in the first year of life. We don't know what those factors are but this timing explains why there has been such a focus on vaccines.

James50

Autism Speaks is a bunch of scaremongers out to spread hysteria in order to get donations. They got in the way of the autistic rights activist Ari Ne'eman from getting a position on Obama's presidential council of disability because he criticizes their crap. If they ever got their wish that a "cure" for autism be found then our world would be full of socializing gossips that don't accomplish much.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is usually a very serious condition in which you can't focus on other people or even a task for any longer than a few seconds.

This is false. The majority of autistic people are verbal, intelligent individuals; the severely non-verbal and low-functioning individuals are a minority of people on the autism spectrum, they just get the most attention because scaremongering groups equate these severely low-functioning individuals with all autistics.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

How would we know? The less socially adept would also be less likely to procreate - especially in the class of people who get noticed by historians.

I would think that means less autism passed on genetically.

It is not just one researcher or medical authority who says autism is an epidemic, but a consensus. I would say 700 times more is an epidemic. The medical researchers who say this are referring to the severe cases only, from what I could gather.

I don't know about something like Aspergers. My Mom accused me of having it. Maybe. But it could only indicate something happening among adults or older children in the general population. Asbergers is not autism, and doesn't have the same definition or traits as autism.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good. I'm glad you are offended.

I didn't say it; I was paraphrasing as best I could the definition I heard on the Newshour. And it's the researchers who said this is a recent epidemic.

My contribution to the discussion was my suggestion that an epidemic of mild autism might be affecting our politics. But there's no research to support that idea, since it is just my speculation.

No, Eric. What's affecting our politics is an epidemic of *sociopathy*. Not the same at all.

Originally Posted by James50

I posted a link to the UC Davis study whose conclusion was that the increasing incidence could not be explained by more inclusive diagnosis. The incidence has exploded in our lifetime. There is no such thing as a genetic epidemic.

James50

I need to have a look at that.

Originally Posted by Odin

That's a red herring. People don't get or lose Pell Grant eligibility based on, say, what their major is or what their political views are.

No, it's not a red herring - it's flaming sarcasm. Geez, I wish our language had a metaphorical mode built into it. In Old English you could not have expressed such a statement without using the subjunctive throughout. You couldn't even talk about dreams and prophecies without using the subjunctive. Mister, we could use a tongue like Good King Alfred's again....

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

How would we know? The less socially adept would also be less likely to procreate - especially in the class of people who get noticed by historians.

Less socially adept males. Socially non-adept females may not be able to get good mates, or any at all (though I got one. Kept him for over 20 years, too.) but they can always get laid. In fact, are at risk for it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is usually a very serious condition in which you can't focus on other people or even a task for any longer than a few seconds. It is not the same as introversion.

I am INTP or INFP.

Again, I only have my nephew as an example, but it seems like he can concentrate on one item for an almost uncomfortable long time. He can be very one track minded and persistent at trying to put a complicated puzzle together or build something with his toys and blocks. If one thing is imperfect, he almost freaks out...takes everything apart and tries again until he can get it right in one period. He was worse when he was younger and now doesn't get as frustrated and has more patience with himself.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

No, Eric. What's affecting our politics is an epidemic of *sociopathy*. Not the same at all.

Now I agree with this!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

No, it's not a red herring - it's flaming sarcasm.

Flaming sarcasm, no less? May I take that as a compliment?

Geez, I wish our language had a metaphorical mode built into it. In Old English you could not have expressed such a statement without using the subjunctive throughout. You couldn't even talk about dreams and prophecies without using the subjunctive. Mister, we could use a tongue like Good King Alfred's again....

Oh my yes. English has a lot of words, to be sure. But it totally lacks precision.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Asbergers is not autism, and doesn't have the same definition or traits as autism.

Wrong, in the new version of the Diagnostic Manual the distinction being "Asperger's Disorder" and "Autistic Disorder" is being eliminated because Asperger's is simply High-Functioning Autism without a speech delay in childhood.

Starting in 2012 my diagnosis will be relabeled as "Autistic Disorder, mild type, co-morbid ADD and OCD"

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

No, it's not a red herring - it's flaming sarcasm. Geez, I wish our language had a metaphorical mode built into it. In Old English you could not have expressed such a statement without using the subjunctive throughout. You couldn't even talk about dreams and prophecies without using the subjunctive. Mister, we could use a tongue like Good King Alfred's again....

That reminds me of a English-descendant conlang project I'm working on, with "would" becoming a subjunctive prefix.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Again, I only have my nephew as an example, but it seems like he can concentrate on one item for an almost uncomfortable long time. He can be very one track minded and persistent at trying to put a complicated puzzle together or build something with his toys and blocks. If one thing is imperfect, he almost freaks out...takes everything apart and tries again until he can get it right in one period. He was worse when he was younger and now doesn't get as frustrated and has more patience with himself.

LOL, your nephew and I are sounding like carbon copies!