883
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
883 points (98.7% liked)
News
23634 readers
3381 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We run into a few interesting possibilities here. Start with the assumption that more children are being diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. That gives us a few possibilities.
1.a) If more children are being appropriately diagnosed with ASD, then perhaps the criteria needs to be tightened up; at a certain point, behavior/feelings/thoughts are just normal.
Because there's more screening--but not necessarily better screening--children are being pathologized as having ASD when they do not, because too many clinicians don't have the necessary expertise. This is a distinct possibility, in much the same way that kids are being labelled as having ADD/ADHD--and then getting drugs--when they're more frequently just being kids.
More children are actually on the autism spectrum now than there were 30 years ago. E.g., it's not that more kids slipped through the cracks 30 years ago, but there is actually a higher rate of ASD than there was 30 years ago. This is the one that should cause the most concern; if this is actually the case, and can be demonstrated to be the case, then what factor is causing this maladaption?
Agree on the better testing for ASD. According to the CDC, autism rates have doubled from the year 2000(1 in 68, vs 1 in 150).
The consensus is that ASD is mostly genetic, however, there is some research going into other causes of autism, such environmental/biological causes. Personally, I think growing up with modern technology(kids being raised by YouTube/TikTok) impacts brain development/connections, so there are people with symptoms of ASD that otherwise would be "normal"
The issue with diagnoses like this is that you arrive to the conclusion by looking at the symptoms. And there's a lot of fucked up things going on right now that could cause more and more people to show symptoms.
i've worked on building better habits such as exercise, maintaining social connections, and working through my emotions instead of repressing them, and I've noticed that many symptoms that I used to associate with ASD were really depression. Like some sort of coping, catatonic state. I'd imagine that with mental health being what it is, there's probably a lot of people similar to me. Surprise, did you know ASD is far more common in males? 1 in 42, vs 1 in 189, for females.
There's some thought that autism rates are identical in men and women, and that the difference in diagnosis has more to do with the presentation. It's plausible.
My ex wasn't diagnosed with anything, but has an autistic sister and strange behaviors herself. Being suspicious of myself (I was diagnosed with ADHD during a time you couldn't have both) and having always carefully observed people (to mask better), I noticed some qualities the two shared, but the symptoms were more subtle in my ex. She has been tested but not diagnosed, and I think the doctors were wrong. But, yes, symptoms observed had a distinctly feminine skew, or even a different mode of application. She did not get the help I know she needed (and she mistakenly held the opinion that the doctors are nigh-infallible, and that I am not ASD either).
Yeah, I've suspected for a while that some of the autism spectrum is just the brain allocating resources differently to different things. It has a finite number of neurons (which is true even if it can grow new ones over time), so a higher emphasis on learning one thing could come at the cost of something else.
Or it could even be a matter of some people not building as strong of a foundation in some areas because their brain didn't figure out something that others did, and it snowballs from there as peers develop on that stronger foundation of things they think they just inherently know and can't imagine someone not knowing it and those without that strong foundation try to develop along with their peers but can't because of what they are missing.
Like imagine that while learning math, you somehow miss learning the number 3. This would be pretty obvious because math is a rigid system, but imagine it wasn't as strictly logical like language or social interactions. Maybe a better example would be developing drawing skills without knowing anything about perspective or lighting. Sure, there's plenty of styles that don't need that foundation, but if you want to draw photorealistic pictures, they are going to look off or even bad, even though they might still be recognizable. Kinda like socializing with someone with autism who isn't good at masking.
Though the ability to mask itself might indicate it's deeper than that. It indicates that some are capable of adjusting for their foundation, does being able to mask while still having those gaps mean the gaps are genetic? Or can we only develop by building on what we have, so the best we can do is put patches over the shortcomings we recognize in ourselves and want to correct instead of being able to truly fill those gaps in the foundation?
And all of this doesn't even go into sensory issues related to autism. If there's different mechanisms that result in the different aspects of autism, should they even be considered the same thing? How would one even figure out if they share mechanisms?
1)a) you missed the part where you clearly said "spectrum" before.
maybe instead, you/we need to change how we react to parts of the spectrum. That is a) it isn't "normal" and b) that's okay.
Even though it's a spectrum--in that it's comprised of a number of different characteristics that are present to varying degrees--I think that perhaps some of those characteristics have been overly pathologized. I'm not sure exactly how to explain it. If I made up a disease--I'm going to call it Short-Man Syndrome (SMS)--and said that any male under 5'2" had SMS, then someone that was 5'2.1" wouldn't fit the criteria. But wait!, he says, I feel short. So maybe that definition gets widened a little bit. So now a person that's 5'2.5" says, well, I feel short too, and maybe a doctor disagrees, since 5'2.5" is pretty short, and that definition gets even wider. Eventually maybe someone that's 5'11" is saying, well I feel short compared to Yao Ming...
And maybe that's what's happening here. I don't know. Even though all of these characteristics may exist on a continuum, you need to have a definite cut off point where you say, this point and beyond is pathological, and anything up to that, no matter how close, isn't. Otherwise your definition becomes pointless.
no. in so many ways, no.
I like "Normal is boring" as a slogan.
I like boring
Beautiful is Boring
When I was a kid, I used to have a button on my backpack that said, "why be normal?" Of course, I got bullied for it. Because the worst thing you can ever be is non-normal. Fuck 'em, I'm still weird.
If there ARE more cases of autism(which we dont know if there are, or if it's a result of better screening. Smarter people than me would have to determine that) my first instinct would be to look at microplastics and other environmental pollutants. Again, more qualified people than me would have to look into that, but it seems to be a better hypothesis than the conspiracy theory about vaccines.
This is pure speculation, but since we found Lead caused so many development issues when it was so prominent in everyday life, and plastic has been likened to this generations lead- poisoning, I wonder if there is a link between the prevalence of micro plastics and the increase in ADHD and ASD.
The plastics are blocking my dopamine receptors
I might go a level deeper and argue that the formal education process requires a degree of attention and focus that lots of kids don't have. The "autism" diagnosis and subsequent treatment is more about fitting round kids into square holes than it is treating an actual mental disorder.
I can say from personal experience that Adderall helped me study even without ADD. Its a performance enhancing drug, of sorts. And if landing a diagnosis means giving your kids a chemical edge on the next state exam, then more parents are going to discover their children have a problem.
I might take this one step deeper and assert that the real problem we're attempting to medicate isn't autism, its poverty. The underlying fear of an autistic diagnosis is that the child won't grow up to be self-sufficient. The drugs (whether they're necessary or simply a competitive edge) are intended to turn children into the successful mindless drones who are capable of churning mechanically through rote exercises that the school system / workforce demands of them.
Its possible that this is entirely due to a survivorship bias. Kids with autism are considered "salvageable" in an age where drowning the weakest of six children in the bath tube because they're dead weight on the family income is no longer consider practical (fewer kids) or acceptable (surveillance state).
Also possible that autism - like a number of other disorders - is linked to aging mothers or sunlight deficiency or toxic food/water/air in a heavily industrial society.
Autism could arguably even be a kind-of beneficial mutation - the result of increasingly smart people having increasingly more mentally adapt babies with mental talents the rest of us dumb-dumbs only see as a handicap, because we're trying to fit them into those aforementioned square holes.
Okay, but that seems to be more prevalent now than it used to be. Is it really more prevalent? Or maybe the way we teach things has changed, leading to worse outcomes? Full disclosure: I was formally diagnosed with ASD in my later 30s; Asperger's didn't even exist as a diagnosis until after I had graduated from public schools. I had a very hard time focusing in all of my classes.
I know that there's a strong link between trisomy-23 (Downs Syndrome) and older mothers, but I hadn't heard of other genetic issues. I'm not disputing it, just saying I wasn't aware of them.
It is absolutely a handicap. This is undeniable. It's a handicap because it hinders your ability to interact appropriately with the world. I have greatly reduced empathy and communication ability; I can usually guess how people are feeling, but I don't really feel it in the way that most people say they do, and I don't really feel much of my own emotions. I can't just power through shit like some people can either; I'll sometimes go into complete shutdown when there's too much going on, things that most people have no issues with. There's a lot more, really. But trust me, it's a handicap in dealing with life.
Our education system has grown more rigid, more test-centric, and more exhausting under iterative attempts at reform. I'm not even speaking to "worse outcomes" so much as maladaptation. Kids with ADD are going to be more prone to exhibit symptoms in an environment that buckles them down and compels them to concentrate on singular tasks for longer amounts of time.
There's a number of physical and psychological correlations but not a ton of causation. So its mostly a conjecture.
I've heard different takes on this from different people. And I've seen at least a few people horrified at the idea of any kind of change in their condition, for fear of it taking away something fundamental about them.
So... idk. I definitely understand wanting relief from a handicap. But I've also heard people describe the tunnel vision and detachment as comparable to the deep immersion one gets in a state of flow.