Excellent rebuttal of a scurrilous article about autism.

[china autie]

Intelligence tests are biased against certain populations-- the poor and people who do not talk come to mind, oh, and prisoners.

I worked briefly in a prison. The inmates are given IQ tests during their initial intake period-- maybe during the first two weeks or so when they are separated from the general population at least during their daytime schedule. In some prisons, the results of the group administered IQ tests determine what jobs those inmates will be initially assigned. If not done prior, during the classification process, inmates are assigned to a prison on the basis of their perceived danger to others and perceived flight risk.

I am not saying that no one should go to prison.

My point is this: someone was just sentenced to a prison term, they do not know exactly what will happen to them even if they are repeat offenders, they are away from their families, they are herded into a room and given a group IQ test. How in the world does anyone expect those particular results to be accurate?

In the USA, walking around while being black and being poor are two of the biggest risk factors for involvement with the legsl system. The majority of prisoners may be guilty of their crimes but some of them are innocent.

Maybe we just seriously disagree here or maybe some of us have been feeding either an Autistic or an Allistic troll. If you don't go by the last name of Chan, my deep apologies.

 

[Fino]

It would solve all problems related to low IQ. Crime would drop massively (Higher IQ in the prison population is much rarer than it is in the general population, with chronic offenders in western nations having an average IQ of 85). Violent crime, from rapes to murders, are almost exclusively committed by low IQ individuals. Crime in general is mostly committed by people in the 80-90 IQ range, with a sufficiently high average IQ such individuals would be nearly non-existent and therefore crime would likewise be nearly non-existent. IQ determines the wealth of nations with the only exceptions being Communism and oil. And even oil can't fix a 60-70 IQ nation, the proof being that African nations with oil are still among the poorest countries in the world. IQ determines lifespan, health and happiness. So a higher IQ population generally lives longer, is healthier and happier. And this can not be fully accounted for due to socioeconomic reasons. Oh, I don't think I have to mention that poor people have a lower average IQ and wealthier people have a higher average IQ. So from a macro to a micro level, everything gets better.

In the end, what you want doesn't matter. China is already progressing a lot in researching which genes are associated with high IQ and how to increase IQ through genetic manipulation. Just like the Middle-East was left in the dust around 1000 years ago when math was deemed devilry, the Western nations will be left behind due to the decree that genetic manipulation is unethical. There will always be those that hate any kind of progress, but there will also always be those that will do what they want regardless of that.

It seems like massive oversimplification, with the most obvious problem being the confusion between correlation and causation.

 

[AloneNotLonely]

You can't invoke a "Correlation isn't causation" fallacy without pointing out the fallacy in the argument itself.

So if you would want to point out curve-fitted data, all you would have to do is point out any other country/state and the results should be totally different.

And if there would be a factor causing these patterns universally across populations, then it would be easy to find a study that controls for this and shows no correlation after removing that factor. Especially when it involves a topic researched to death, such as IQ's effects on society.

Or did you think simply shouting out a random fallacy would prove your point? "Smoking causes lung cancer". Correlation doesn't equal causation! Yea. Man the Tobacco industry would be oh so happy if it worked like that.

 

[Fino]

You can't invoke a "Correlation isn't causation" fallacy without pointing out the fallacy in the argument itself.

So if you would want to point out curve-fitted data, all you would have to do is point out any other country/state and the results should be totally different.

And if there would be a factor causing these patterns universally across populations, then it would be easy to find a study that controls for this and shows no correlation after removing that factor. Especially when it involves a topic researched to death, such as IQ's effects on society.

Or did you think simply shouting out a random fallacy would prove your point? "Smoking causes lung cancer". Correlation doesn't equal causation! Yea. Man the Tobacco industry would be oh so happy if it worked like that.

For a long time, the Tobacco industry did work like that, unfortunately. It took decades for it to be widely understood as dangerous! And in order to get there, something beyond correlation did have to be proven.

And your correlations are in every sentence, I thought it might be condescending to explain any further.

 

[AloneNotLonely]

You are not pointing out any evidence to the contrary. Simply pointing "Correlation doesn't equal causation" doesn't disprove the correlation of IQ and well-being. You would need to show that it's flawed through one of two methods I outlined above. Or if I were to make the assertion based on a single flawed study you could even argue there's not enough evidence.

The only reason the Tobacco industry was able to work like that was because people using the same thought process that you are using now ignored the evidence. After a few studies proving correlation in different populations one would at the very least need to acknowledge that it is extremely plausible that inhaling smoke from a burning plant might not be all that healthy. Likewise, it is beyond extremely plausible considering the wealth of evidence that a higher aptitude for logical thinking would have an effect on violent tendencies and earning capability.

 

[Onna]

Some of you may be aware of the horrendously misinformed and highly inaccurate article about neurodiversity published in the UK publication "The Spectator" last week. The author is a notorious American internet troll and bully, but somehow managed to get his views published in a mainstream current affairs magazine. The article was potentially highly damaging to autism advocates and puts forward ideas and attitudes that seek to unravel decades of work towards achieving parity of respect and opportunity for autistic people.

The article below is a superb and magnanimous rebuttal of the article, paragraph by paragraph which states the truth we all know about our variety. It's a long(ish) but worthwhile read. The original article is reproduced within to save you giving the original unwanted "clicks".

An Open Letter to The Spectator in Riposte to the Article Against Neurodiversity

An alternative rebuttal by another writer is linked below which is equally worth reading afterwards.

An open letter to the Spectator’s anti-neurodiversity article: THE DANGERS OF NEURODIVERSITY

Wow that ‘autism speaks’ bit was particularly intense. I knew they weren’t liked, but I hadn’t looked into why. I can see why now... they sound clueless, hateful and extremely unhelpful to both autistics and NTs.
If a new NT parent of an Autistic child was given that information as their first impression of autism, they’re instantly giving them the worst possible outlook imaginable. I can’t imagine how many people they may have negatively impacted from those statements. It’s so irresponsible. Disgusting really.

 

[Derp]

Uhhhh... the rebuttal is really bad? The original article says nothing outrageous that needs to be argued against in the first place?

The whole ND movement is pretty much all made up of HFA. People who by definition do not have a severe disability but just want everyone to behave according to their needs. The original article stated that it is incorrect to lash out against those that want to prevent or cure Autism because there are those that are severely disabled due to Autism, and those people have no voice.

I'd say the whole ND thing is quite the cult. The reaction where Autism Speaks' crappy attempt at an artistic PSA was likened to genocide, I think it's a bit over the top. Primarily because Autism Speaks is not talking about your average 130 IQ Aspie engineer. They are talking about kids that need round the clock care.

Don't get me wrong though. To say all NTs need to be forced to accommodate HFA is going a little overboard. Nobody should be forced to accommodate anyone.

finally someone agrees

 

[Autistamatic]

finally someone agrees

"The concept of Neurodiversity is based upon the acknowledgement that no matter our style of thought, of communication or perception, we are all equals with the same rights to dignity, provision of service and opportunities in life."

And here's the other side of the "debate"....

 

[Crossbreed]

"The concept of Neurodiversity is based upon the acknowledgement that no matter our style of thought, of communication or perception, we are all equals with the same rights to dignity, provision of service and opportunities in life."

The concept is even simpler than that. Barring co-morbid complications, neuro-diversity holds that there are viable alternative neurologies to be had, just as left-handedness is a healthy alternative to right-handedness.

I believe that it was Tony Attwood who said if you had a room full of Aspies, all of their social difficulties would disappear.

The same could not be said about mental defects, like schizophrenia or psychosis.

 

[55853]

I believe that it was Tony Attwood who said if you had a room full of Aspies, all of their social difficulties would disappear.

I have been in that situation, and this was definitely not the case.

The others in the room were very talkative and loud. Their answer would be "definitely agree" to "When I talk, it isn’t always easy for others to get a word in edgewise" on the "AQ50" autism screening tool.

In contrast, I am someone who is reserved and quiet, so I am "definitely disagree" to the same question. It meant for the hours I was in the room, I got to say a total of around 2 words. It was more socially difficult, not less.

I really do not understand this perspective. We all have social difficulties to some level, but they manifest very differently from person to person.

Personally speaking, I do much better with people not on the spectrum, than I do with the people I've met on the spectrum.

 

[Autistamatic]

The neurodiversity "movement" such as it is, seeks to include everyone with inherent perceptive differences including those with co-occurring conditions, and to seek adequate treatment for those co-occurring conditions.
ND has been under attack for a long time from people who wish to suggest that it excludes "severe autistics". They hold that those who promote ND are "not really autistic" or that we are somehow "privileged". Consequently it has become necessary to ensure that we are proactively inclusive. Whilst many of us accept that what they describe as "severe autism" is actually autism combined with co-occurring conditions, including but not limited to Intellectual Disabilities, they do not and their damaging & inaccurate arguments must be countered.

Someone with autism or dyslexia could be schizophrenic, for example. The goal of ND includes seeking a cure or treatment for their schizophrenia but to respect their underlying perceptual differences.
It's an immature argument often thrown own by anti-ND fanatics who try to suggest that people with mental illnesses fall under the ND umbrella. They do not, but people with mental illnesses may also be ND. The two are separate as you describe above @Crossbreed
It is believed by ND advocates that if it were possible to cure all co-occurring conditions, the playing field would be levelled and all autistic people would be similar in ability and capable of functioning in a more aware and accommodating society.
Any benefit to "higher functioning" autistic people from finding and encouraging ways for society in general to meet us halfway (NOT "forcing NTs to accommodate" for every little idiosyncracy) is of benefit to ALL autistic people.

As for the "room full of aspies" question. I have been in that position on numerous occasions and I find it not to be the case. It's easier than being the only autistic in the room in some ways, because you don't feel out of place and no-one thinks your stimming is weird, but keeping a conversation on track can be a challenge.
Our autism doesn't disappear, but at least we understand each other on a level we don't get in everyday life without masking. Our social difficulties can therefore be less problematic and stressful than we are used to but they are still apparent.

 

[AloneNotLonely]

"The concept of Neurodiversity is based upon the acknowledgement that no matter our style of thought, of communication or perception, we are all equals with the same rights to dignity, provision of service and opportunities in life."

And here's the other side of the "debate"....

No that is not the other side of the debate. This is known as a strawman fallacy, where you misrepresent the views of the opposing party in an easily rebutted way. Not that you rebutted it, you just used shame and something akin to an "everybody knows fallacy". I have been putting out the argument here and there have been no sensible rebuttals to it, just things that make the other side of the argument look even worse (such as the 10%/15% of Non verbal/LFA that want a cure).

This is the core of the argument (quoted from the post mostly because I am too lazy to write up my own argument once again):

"Others with autism spectrum disorder have it worse than I do. People on the more severe end sometimes can’t speak. They soil themselves, wreak havoc and break things. I have known them to chew up furniture and self-mutilate. They need lifelong care.

Given this, could any reasonable person think autism is not an affliction? Could any caring person try to prevent sufferers seeking a cure? Common sense dictates the answer should be no. The reality is that identity politics has become so deranged that there is a group of people (both here and in the UK) who seek to prevent autistic people getting help, on the nonsensical grounds that it’s insulting to suggest they need it."

The article that this thread is about did not address this in any way. All it said was that Autistic people sometimes get forced into stressful situations/treatments. Gene therapy/genetic selection is not one of these stressful things and this is the type of cure we mean.

Not only that, but all of this whining, complaining and self-victimization reflects badly on the rest of us that don't want to whine and complain and want to have a normal life rather than live in a perfectly tailored wonderland. I mean if ND advocates were actually doing useful things such as trying to get laws passed that ban fireworks and enact police-state style curfews I'd be all for that, but instead they cry about Autism Speaks making a crappy advert and telling employers to spend vast amounts of resources on accommodating people with Autism that feel entitled to a full-time position despite not being a profitable hire to an employer.

I used to be able to state I had Autism to an employer and inform them of the things that normally cause me issues at work and they would think nothing negative of it, but if I needed to find a job now I wouldn't out of fear of being associated with the ND movement.

 

[Autistamatic]

"Others with autism spectrum disorder have it worse than I do. People on the more severe end sometimes can’t speak. They soil themselves, wreak havoc and break things. I have known them to chew up furniture and self-mutilate. They need lifelong care.

You are not describing people with "severe autism" you are describing people with severe co-occurring conditions in conjunction with autism. Those conditions occur in NT people as well as autistic people.
Were you to cure their autism they will still be incontinent and still have Intellectual Disabilities.
Neurodiversity as a potential future does not seek a "perfectly tailored wonderland" - it seeks a balance, a meeting at the halfway point. It encompasses both social change and medical assistance to cure or ameliorate co-occurring conditions. It is not what you appear to think it is.
It's ironic really. I'm currently writing a piece for publication on the aims of the neurodiversity movement, and your post has been genuinely inspiring. Thank you for that

 

[AloneNotLonely]

Don't sweat it. Happy to help.

Would like to reiterate that those are not my words, but from the "scurrilous" article being criticized.

These co-occurring conditions have a significantly higher prevalence in people with Autism, therefore filtering for Autism will also filter out these conditions. Not only that, but with more research into people with both Autism and these co-occurring conditions will help to also cure these co-occurring conditions.

To separate Autism from these co-occurring conditions is incorrect because we honestly do not know if the problems caused in some people with Autism are entirely separate from their Autism. Just because the symptoms are the same does not mean the causes are as well. Autism is caused by some issue within the brain, and this issue being widespread could cause a whole myriad of problems you like to attribute to co-morbidity while they might simply be consequences of severe Autism.

Meanwhile you are against any research being done that could disprove your assertion, which is a good way to remain "right" indefinitely, I suppose. But it is not the same as being correct.

 

[55853]

These co-occurring conditions have a significantly higher prevalence in people with Autism

In people diagnosed with autism. The more that is viewed as "wrong" with you, the more likely it is someone will notice, and the more likely they are to raise concerns with a doctor.

As someone with no co-occuring conditions, it was a strange combination of events that lead to my diagnosis. I believe there's many people out there who fit the criteria for autism alone, who have no diagnosis, because of lack of concern from parents/teachers/etc. when they were growing up.

therefore filtering for Autism will also filter out these conditions

With all the differences in "autism", isn't it more of a vague descriptor, than it is one condition?

 

[Autistamatic]

I am not in favour wasting money on a fruitless search for a mythical cure that at best is centuries away that could be better spent on improving people's lives. When science & technology has got to the point where we can discriminate so finely that we can preserve autistic strengths whilst eliminating the weaknesses - go ahead and seek your cure. Until then it is a wasted effort. Be aware though, that if you lose your weaknesses, you lose a big chunk of your identity too.

You make arguments against ND that hold no weight because ND is not what you claim it to be. Agreed there are a few idiots that associate themselves with ND who come up with daft assertions or behave in an unacceptably aggressive manner, but they are a tiny minority amongst a huge movement working for beneficial change for all ND people.

Don't judge a movement based upon that tiny minority, judge it on what it tries to achieve. And FYI - introducing a license requirement for the use of fireworks is an aim that several ND organisations in the UK have stated as an aim.

 

[AloneNotLonely]

With sufficient money it certainly is not centuries away, perhaps decades.

Apart from that, it is not for you (or the ND movement) to judge what can be researched with someone else's money. It is up to the people who donate to organizations such as AutismSpeaks to determine if they feel their money is well-spent. Even if it is completely wasted, it is their money and their decision.

I did not mean to misrepresent the views of the ND movement. This is another issue with these movements, they are made up of individuals with all kinds of different ideas as to what the movement should be about. Some really care about forcing employers to hire them (this is actually a big deal in my country so I guess ND manifests itself differently everywhere), but I suppose you do not as judged by your reply. But the main issue with the ND movement remains that there is complete denialism about the negative effects of Autism. Excessive anxiety is not "just a difference". Inability to form meaningful relationships despite wanting to do so is not "just a difference". Meltdowns are not "just a difference". Naturally, this does not describe all people with Autism but there is certainly a large amount, even among HFA, that have these issues.

With all the differences in "autism", isn't it more of a vague descriptor, than it is one condition?

Nobody really knows. There are plenty of theories as to what exactly causes it but no smoking gun. Perhaps there are different causes for different expressions of Autism and knowing this if it is the case would help differentiate in the kinds of issues people have and lead to more accurate diagnoses. Right now all cases of Autism are judged on certain behaviours that are common to all those with Autism, which doesn't have to be correct but it's all there is to go on right now.

 

[Autistamatic]

Excessive anxiety is not "just a difference". Inability to form meaningful relationships despite wanting to do so is not "just a difference". Meltdowns are not "just a difference". Naturally, this does not describe all people with Autism but there is certainly a large amount, even among HFA, that have these issues.

Do you not agree that all those things you have listed can be addressed by social change?

Would not anxiety be reduced without the need to mask so much? Would relationships not be easier to form if people understood how and why your body language and your understanding of the world is different? Would meltdowns not be less frequent if the world wasn't so overwhelming to our senses and people more accepting of our differences?

Just one tiny example of what I/we mean. At the moment I could be having a meeting with my boss. He's telling me something important, but because of his assumptions about body language he thinks my difficulty with eye contact and my "fidgeting" means I'm not paying attention or not taking him seriously so he gets angry. Result - I get into trouble at work and my anxiety skyrockets.
Of course I could fake it as best I could, like I have to now, but then I'm masking and putting undue strain on myself. Result - still anxiety but at least I'm not in trouble.
OR the boss might be aware of ND and that eye contact is difficult for people like me. He might recognise that my knee bouncing up and down isn't a signal I want to flee but is actually me stimming because I'm genuinely interested and it helps me concentrate. If he's unsure he might know to ask "Are you OK there?" and trust me when I tell him I am. Result - successful meeting, no-one's in trouble and anxiety is unaffected.

It's tiny changes in perception and understanding that could be done right now that ND wishes to see happening. It's educating people that our differences are not to be feared. I/we promote meeting halfway - not society to bend to our whims. I can agree not to use fidget tools that make a noise when I need to stim so it's not distracting to others whilst they simply have to understand what stimming is and why I do it. They could learn to ask whether the signals we are giving out are truly negative or are just our different body language and trust our answers, whilst we continue to make the effort to give the right signals in the first place. It's about sharing the burden so we can get along better and level the playing field. We would get to mask less, yet all we ask of the other side is to open their minds a little bit. We would get to live "normal" lives because we wouldn't be treated as freaks and weirdos any more.

Yes there are a few extremists who misrepresent ND and make it harder for the rest of us. They make misguided, sweeping statements which are picked apart by the extremists on the other side of the debate. The true message of ND has very little to do with a cure for autism because most believe it will never happen in our lifetimes and may well be impossible. Even the researchers in the field are saying that.
The aims of ND are to help people understand that there are 2 sides to autism. There are upsides and downsides. Helping people to understand and make use of the ups - the skills and strengths we have, as well as awareness of the downs that make us look odd to them, makes for a better world for all of us.
Despite that 15% you mention who wish for a cure, 85% of us do not want to be changed or have our personalities altered. I'm not a betting man but I'd wager that if neurodiversity were accepted by all and many of the obstacles to us reduced or eliminated, that 85% would grow substantially.

 

[Derp]

I have eating problems, Social issues ,Serious Depression, Dyspraxia, Dysphagia, Anhedonia, Anger and Frustration Issues, ADHD Messed up short term memory and a ton of other stuff. You are Way more likely to be "Low Functioning" than high functioning and Much more likely to have life impairing co morbid conditions than those Super power gifts everyone acts like is exclusive to autism.
There are much more non autistic people with high iqs than autistics and 99.99% of Doctors, Engineers, Scientist and other successful people don't have autism I hate every time someone with autism is good at something like math (they don't even have to be savant just fairly above average) they act like they have a monopoly on "being smart" like "If I didn't have autism I wouldn't be good a high school algebra"

 

[Crossbreed]

There are much more non autistic people with high iqs than autistics and 99.99% of Doctors, Engineers, Scientist and other successful people don't have autism

As you get into higher IQ levels, asynchronous development is quite common, even if not to PDD levels. It is related type of neuro-diversity.