Autistics aren't handicapped, just misunderstood
 

I was reading an article in the recent Wired magazine about the new movement among some autistic people to increase awareness about this condition. Mind you, these people aren't asking for government funds or help with their "handicap." These people are stating straight up,"I'm not handicapped, I'm just different." One woman is posting videos on YouTube with a computer-generated voice(she's non-verbal) handling the video's dialogue. The video contains footage of her doing some of her rituals and explains them.

They gave a test to two groups, an autistic group and a control group. I forget what the long name of the test is, but the short term is Raven. This test allows for the possibility that a person may not be able to communicate the answers in a normal fashion, in other words, verbally. As it turns out, both groups averaged the same numbers of correct answers, but the autistics got those right answers 40% faster than the control group. Not only that, but the percentage of autistics deemed to be severely mentally retarded by the test dropped to approximately the same level as occurs in the general population.

These things are causing people to rethink the idea of autistic people being handicapped or retarded. As one of the autistics in the article said,(not an exact quote)"We're not handicapped or impaired, we're just different. Non-verbal doesn't mean we don't know what's going on. It just means we're non-verbal. Why is it that a normal person can jiggle their leg or tap a pencil, which is considered normal, but when an autistic person flaps their arms or rocks, we're suddenly retarded?"

Off-topic: The article didn't state an opinion about Richard Simmons, but I think autistics would agree that he is a much better benchmark when determining whether someone is weird. (just kidding)

While the supposed link between imunizations and autism has been debunked, there is rising evidence for another possible cause.

It appears that the rise in the cases of autism, seem to correlate to the rise of the use of artificial sweetners, specifically by pregnant women. There has been in the past ~50 years a trend for doctors to, remind women that unlimited weight gain during pregnancy is not the most healthful. This has caused the increasing use of artificial sweetners to reduce calorie intake. Both the use of artificial sweetners and autism diagnosis seem to be accelerating.

A big thumbs-up for the article which you describe, Jason. Autism (of which there are various forms) is clearly unrelated to intelligence. And it is only a handicap in the sense that it can be a barrier to communication in the ways in which the majority of people communicate with each other. In the modern world which is getting busier all around us and where communication on everyone else's terms is getting more and more important, the person with autism is of course put at a serious disadvantage.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;127375]While the supposed link between imunizations and autism has been debunked, there is rising evidence for another possible cause.

It appears that the rise in the cases of autism, seem to correlate to the rise of the use of artificial sweetners, specifically by pregnant women. There has been in the past ~50 years a trend for doctors to, remind women that unlimited weight gain during pregnancy is not the most healthful. This has caused the increasing use of artificial sweetners to reduce calorie intake. Both the use of artificial sweetners and autism diagnosis seem to be accelerating.[/QUOTE]

Just because both have increased doesn't mean there is a causal relationship. One could also try to argue that the instance of autism increases with our (collective) waistlines. Or if you enjoy [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=9862&highlight=whisky"]Ernst's thread[/URL], you could argue that as well.

Like ADD/ADHD or Asperger's, I think much of the increase can be tied to the fact that doctor's today understand it much better than in previous decades and are more easily able to give that diagnosis.

[QUOTE=rogue;127398]Like ADD/ADHD or Asperger's, I think much of the increase can be tied to the fact that doctor's today understand it much better than in previous decades and are more easily able to give that diagnosis.[/QUOTE]Just because both have increased doesn't mean there is a causal relationship.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;127405]Just because both have increased doesn't mean there is a causal relationship.[/QUOTE]

I think you might have misunderstood my point or maybe I didn't state it clearly. My point is that there the increase is not due to more people having ADD/ADHD, but that it is diagnosed more often because more doctors understand the disease and know how to diagnose it. I don't have a proof of this statement, but I believe that it has been proved by others.

BTW, I do not want to imply that there has been no increase, but that the increase might not be as easily recognized due to better diagnostic tools.

[QUOTE=rogue;127398]Just because both have increased doesn't mean there is a causal relationship. [/QUOTE]
Yes, I know. But, the data seem to be more closely tied than that of [URL="http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/living_wildlife/118546"]carrots and car wrecks.[/URL]
It is something to watch.

[quote=rogue;127410]...My point is that there the increase is not due to more people having ADD/ADHD, but that it is diagnosed more often because more doctors understand the disease and know how to diagnose it....
BTW, I do not want to imply that there has been no increase, but that the increase might not be as easily recognized due to better diagnostic tools.[/quote]

It does indeed seem likely that doctors are increasingly aware of the types of autism and will therefore (correctly) diagnose it more often.

A second factor, I believe, is the following: not so long ago it was much easier for people with autism to function in society than it is now. Life was simpler in the sense that most people lived in relatively small communities and spent their days dealing with only a small number of other people, normally well known to them, in ways which repeated themselves day after day. Now that has changed and far more communication skills and ability to adapt to change are demanded of everyone. Therefore autism was much less of a problem in the past then it is now, which means it is more likely to be considered an illness now.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;127500]It does indeed seem likely that doctors are increasingly aware of the types of autism and will therefore (correctly) diagnose it more often.

A second factor, I believe, is the following: not so long ago it was much easier for people with autism to function in society than it is now. Life was simpler in the sense that most people lived in relatively small communities and spent their days dealing with only a small number of other people, normally well known to them, in ways which repeated themselves day after day. Now that has changed and far more communication skills and ability to adapt to change are demanded of everyone. Therefore autism was much less of a problem in the past then it is now, which means it is more likely to be considered an illness now.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that, but would like to add a major caveat. Well, maybe it's not a caveat, but...

One of the women in the article communicated by typing, at 120 words a minute, on her typewriter, which was then read aloud by a synthesizer. People she communicated with on the Internet weren't necessarily aware she was non-verbal. So what would happen if she received some sort of neural network-type device that interfaced with the part of her brain that could best produce language, and relayed that either through a speaker, or directly into someone else's brain? Would that person still be at a disadvantage? Or could their disadvantage suddenly turn into a possible advantage?

[quote=jasong;128444]I agree with that, but would like to add a major caveat. Well, maybe it's not a caveat, but...

One of the women in the article communicated by typing, at 120 words a minute, on her typewriter, which was then read aloud by a synthesizer. People she communicated with on the Internet weren't necessarily aware she was non-verbal. So what would happen if she received some sort of neural network-type device that interfaced with the part of her brain that could best produce language, and relayed that either through a speaker, or directly into someone else's brain? Would that person still be at a disadvantage? Or could their disadvantage suddenly turn into a possible advantage?[/quote]

It seems to me that all people using such a device would be at an advantage over everyone who did not use one, as far as the ability to communicate what they think is concerned. (It would need to be capable of distinguishing which thoughts are intended by the thinker to be communicated and which are private of course - none of us would want all our private thoughts tripping out for all to hear. :smile:) For people with certain types of autism I think it could then indeed remove the disadvantage in communication. With other types perhaps not - sometimes the problem is not only putting thoughts into words but being able to connect your thought processes to what others are saying in the first place.

The subject in your example who communicates with a teletyping device and voice synthesizer illustrates, I think, the widely varying conditions (and different degrees of having those conditions) which are lumped together under "autism". Many people with some form or degree of autism are not so severely affected as that. One widely occuring form is Asperger's Syndrome, with which my partner has been diagnosed, and I also recognise some characteristics of it in myself now that I've been forced to learn more about it because of my partner. Maybe some people with some degree of AS deliberately or unconsciously look for a partner with the same condition because you understand each other's mindset. For my friend speaking as a function in itself is not affected, but for him and for me functioning in conversation with others certainly is. It could best be described as different from most other people's way of conversing, and if other people did not demand the more conventional conversation behaviour it would not be a problem at all. There is an interesting thread on this forum here [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=3446[/URL] about Asperger's Syndrome.

This thread reminds me of a story a medical student friend of mine once told, about two autistic twins. I googled "autist prime number", and this was at the top of the list: [url]http://secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/isoc/twins.htm[/url] No doubt some here have heard about this before, but I haven't seen it mentioned.
[QUOTE]
The second time they were seated in a corner together, with a mysterious, secret smile on their faces, a smile I had never seen before, enjoying the strange pleasure and peace they now seemed to have. I crept up quietly, so as not to disturb them. They seemed to be locked in a singular, purely numerical, converse. John would say a number - a six-figure number. Michael would catch the number, nod, smile and seem to savour it. Then he, in turn, would say another six-figure number, and now it was John who received, and appreciated it richly.
...
I returned to the ward the next day, carrying the precious book of primes with me. I again found them closeted in their numerical communion, but this time, without saying anything, I quietly joined them. They were taken aback at first, but when I made no interruption, they resumed their 'game' of six-figure primes. After a few minutes I decided to join in, and ventured a number, an eight-figure prime. They both turned towards me, then suddenly became still, with a look of intense concentration and perhaps wonder on their faces.
...
There was again, and for even longer, a wondering, still silence; and then John, after a prodigious internal contemplation brought out a twelve-figure number. I had no way of checking this, and could not respond, because my own book - which as far as I knew, was unique of its kind - did not go beyond ten-figure primes. But Michael was up to it, though it took him five minutes - and an hour later the twins were swapping twenty-figure primes, at least I assume this was so, for I had no way of checking it. Nor was there any easy way, in 1966, unless one had the use of a sophisticated computer. And even then, it would have been difficult, for whether one uses Eratosthenes' sieve, or any other algorithm, there is no simple method of calculating primes. There is no simple method, for primes of this order - and yet the twins were doing it.
[/QUOTE]