From a neurotypical's perspective

[Jonn]

I don't know what those psychologists are thinking. I don't think I have a different condition than classical autism, I have severe auditory processing issues and often have no idea what people are talking, I'm hard of hearing because of it.

I have all of this, plus visual processing problems, so I win. ...
...errr.

I can see how it's easy to not make sense of that kind of sensory experience. Two of my cousins are ASD-3, are adults and can't speak. If they have the same issue understanding speech, I'm not surprised. The difference is that I'm doing a PhD and my side of the family is like that, and their side of the family doesn't have top 5% IQ, but average. There is no clear boundary and whatever they're trying to classify depends on a number of factors. I have Asperger's and someone with much milder neurological symptoms also has Asperger's. These levels are subjective and I have no interest of drilling the diagnosis further, I looked for help not diagnosis. I would have nothing to do with a paper anyway. Everyone can see I'm hard of hearing anyway.

I think You need a therapist who knows autism in depth.
How difficult would that be?

 

[Rachie]

To explain to me how a post came across as I mentioned as this is for learning. Remember a real human being is sitting on the computer reading, we are not speaking to robots, but most people with a neurodivergence.
If you say to a complete stranger in the street that what they have given you is complete tosh they will likely look at you=nicer ways to say it perhaps lol. For what they not even sent you there for as well seems to not picked up so it come of for getting steamed out for nothing. However, of course we will not agree on research always. Lets face it there is debate to be had and more importantly it is such an important debate about where research is going and to use the word article for an autism speaks table chart kind of undermines the rest of the research that was posted that may be worth a read if you are actually interested in the topic. Was there a hesistancy to update with new research as well and to read them and comment appropriately. Perhaps a new thread should posted about where current scentific research is at to where it is at with autism today, that seems a lot more appropriate to me.

Autism as I wrote has been a condition that has been largely diagnosed by behaviour, reports and there is observation as well. They do ask medical history questions now as well. They have wondered about my own delivery at birth and whether I had any childhood illnesses. This was used for my assessment as I gathered my childhood medical records and submitted them.

I accept it has been based on behaviour largely because I know it exists and seen it in myself since early childhood. I always knew it was somewhere as I had to symptoms. Still, as I going through testing I saying to my team that I do wish there was more science involved in the testing-that you could determine and was told it was not like that. They have been looking for years.

It was good for me to refresh myself in this and seeing where they are today. There is too much for to summarise here, so am focusing on mine. There is a lot research out there as well such conduction and integrity research issues as well in the brain.

Parents usually on autism speaks seem to be interested in how to help and support a loved ones and with a concern over other lived matters affecting them. Not seen this one before such a keen interest in a loved ones brain spanning years. Whatever you feel is right....

I had my head scan at the end of 2021 so I was 47 and I had higher than expected findings for my age and seemingly no possible other explanations. I have the scan images and report as well and need guidance to understand them as well. Still, just a glimmer of seeing being researched on was interesting. You score differently for different areas in the UK. Like for repetition I was level 2. So, for some indication in my brain gives me some sense and understanding.

The childhood research on my illness I just found plain sad, but it helped me to understand as well.

I am going to attach two brief cropped images of my scans. A sensitive area I couldn't understand seemed to be picked up around my ears and the white specks is what they are referring to as increased numbers of subcorbitical and Periventricular areas on the scans and I also other issues was noted on mine with this. So, as I said peoples scans will differ as we are all unique, but it may be useful for some people to grab some clues where they can and may be distressing for others to see as well. Just one article on the repetiton is below and there is more research on this out there as well.

The most important finding-
"However, quantitative analysis revealed elevated periventricular and deep subcortical WMH volumes in ASD. This finding was replicated in the independent, multi-site sample. Periventricular WMH volume was not associated with age but was associated with greater restricted repetitive behaviors on both parent-reported and clinician-rated assessment inventories. Thus, findings demonstrate that periventricular WMH volume is elevated in ASD and associated with a higher degree of repetitive behaviors and restricted interests.."
Periventricular white matter abnormalities and restricted repetitive behavior in autism spectrum disorder - PMC

 

[vergil96]

I have all of this, plus visual processing problems, so I win. ...
...errr.

I have visual processing issues too. But it's not as impactful. I need order and no clutter. I find looking at busy places exhausting. To a lesser extent the TV. And I have photophobia and light flashes feel awful to me. I also have mild face blindness, speaking of talking with people.

I think You need a therapist who knows autism in depth.
How difficult would that be?

I think I have finally managed my problems. It was hard to get help if you don't fit into one of the most common molds.

 

[Boogs]

One of the purposes of the nervous system is to receive information from the environment in visual, tactile, audio, etc., forms. The brain doesn’t receive this data directly, it comes in the form of electromagnetic signals that go through the nervous system.

If the signals are incorrect, even a perfectly functioning brain processes them incorrectly. Autistic people have properly functioning brain but their nervous system is damaged.

You're making massive assumptions here.
And you've not answered my question as to how you're separating the brain and the nervous system (which are all one thing) to say one is somehow damaged while the other isn't, without saying how this is even known never mind it's nature.

You say about signals being incorrect, yet where are the signals becoming incorrect and why and how? Is it at the sense organ? Is it happening in the nerves transmitting the data? Is it in the part of the brain where it first enters? Is it being corrupted at a further stage?

I am a Positivist (Empiricist). For Positivists only physically measured material characteristic are acceptable, the words like “mind” and “conscience” are meaningless to us.

Your 'mind' is derived of the processes going on in your brain, it's a very real functional aspect of the brain.
Conscience is an abstract anthropic behavioural process, quite possibly evolved as part of social development, but that's conjecture on my part.
The two are in no way similar beyond one coming of the other.

So being an empiricist, what's your evidence that your theory of what causes autism is correct, and how does the evidence point to that theory (i.e. the logical argument based on that evidence).

I'm probably coming across a little aggressive, and it's not personal if so, but I strongly feel you're not actually being empirical (something almost all of us are subject to without realising in most cases). That's not surprising or odd, after all, as you've probably read here there's still a lot of argument over what autism even is, never mind the myriad of factors involved and how it could be caused (and professionals are also very much not in a consensus as to the causes and nature).

As a rule if you take just about any complex system comparable to a brain (a computer isn't a bad comparison even if not nearly as complex) if you corrupt or damage the data input stream the chances it will still work are miniscule, the chance those few that may still work will actually function to any useful degree is almost impossible. To just say it's brain damage without discussing the nature of the damage and how it comes about, and how that damage results in that outcome, well, you may as well say god caused it.

Autism isn't caused by random damage, and if the difference is not random, and the brain still works, how are you defining that as damaged? It may be different, but to say your (NT) brain is working and autistic brains are damaged is actually not very nice, and could verge into areas such as eugenics, but more important doesn't explain anything empirically.
How do you account for it, and the fact the symptoms are not random as would be expected from damage, but instead follow a pattern well defined enough to use as a diagnostic? I would argue that if brain damage is the cause of autism, then autistic people would be a small fraction of a large number of humans born so brain damaged they die immediately (or are never independent functional humans).

Until you can describe the nature of that damage and how it results in the range of autistic behaviours, you're just using a word that has little meaning.

 

[Outsider]

You're making massive assumptions here.
And you've not answered my question as to how you're separating the brain and the nervous system (which are all one thing) to say one is somehow damaged while the other isn't, without saying how this is even known never mind it's nature.

You say about signals being incorrect, yet where are the signals becoming incorrect and why and how? Is it at the sense organ? Is it happening in the nerves transmitting the data? Is it in the part of the brain where it first enters? Is it being corrupted at a further stage?


Your 'mind' is derived of the processes going on in your brain, it's a very real functional aspect of the brain.
Conscience is an abstract anthropic behavioural process, quite possibly evolved as part of social development, but that's conjecture on my part.
The two are in no way similar beyond one coming of the other.

So being an empiricist, what's your evidence that your theory of what causes autism is correct, and how does the evidence point to that theory (i.e. the logical argument based on that evidence).

I'm probably coming across a little aggressive, and it's not personal if so, but I strongly feel you're not actually being empirical (something almost all of us are subject to without realising in most cases). That's not surprising or odd, after all, as you've probably read here there's still a lot of argument over what autism even is, never mind the myriad of factors involved and how it could be caused (and professionals are also very much not in a consensus as to the causes and nature).

As a rule if you take just about any complex system comparable to a brain (a computer isn't a bad comparison even if not nearly as complex) if you corrupt or damage the data input stream the chances it will still work are miniscule, the chance those few that may still work will actually function to any useful degree is almost impossible. To just say it's brain damage without discussing the nature of the damage and how it comes about, and how that damage results in that outcome, well, you may as well say god caused it.

Autism isn't caused by random damage, and if the difference is not random, and the brain still works, how are you defining that as damaged? It may be different, but to say your (NT) brain is working and autistic brains are damaged is actually not very nice, and could verge into areas such as eugenics, but more important doesn't explain anything empirically.
How do you account for it, and the fact the symptoms are not random as would be expected from damage, but instead follow a pattern well defined enough to use as a diagnostic? I would argue that if brain damage is the cause of autism, then autistic people would be a small fraction of a large number of humans born so brain damaged they die immediately (or are never independent functional humans).

Until you can describe the nature of that damage and how it results in the range of autistic behaviours, you're just using a word that has little meaning.

There is a physical separation between the brain and the nervous system – the brain is placed in the skull, while the nervous system are the nerves that enter the skull. The following Wikipedia article describes the connections between the brain and the nervous system.

Cranial nerves - Wikipedia.

The corruption of data could happen at any stage; you have mentioned the majority of stages. Nerves could be damaged during a physical mishap such as a fall, complicated birth, and few more. There is no single cause of nerve damage.

However, all the causes that I mentioned are statistically insignificant, I fully realize that. Nevertheless, there are prevalent causes that I prefer not to mention here. There is a lot of controversy regarding this topic, and I’m not sure if so-called conspiracy theories are acceptable at this forum. I plan to address this topic at Facebook, and when I do that I’ll provide a link to my Facebook feed. Let’s say for now that I find these “conspiracy theories” to be true.

According to the Positivist view, mind is not derived of the processes in the brain because it doesn’t exist, the word “mind” itself is used as a grammatical construct intended to shorten descriptions of certain physical processes.

Well, it would take too long to explain how Positivism applies to neuroscience; I don’t think that the general public, both autistic people and NTs, would find a presentation interesting.

You don’t come as aggressive, don’t worry about that; I’m as tough as they come. You are a thoughtful person who stands his intellectual ground.

My position is that the autistic brain is not damaged, but the autistic nervous system is. It is true that the symptoms of damage are not random. How so? I’m threading a thin line here; I’m still unfamiliar with all Forum policies.

MRI brain scans are easy to perform because the brain is contained in a single body location. Nervous system is distributed throughout the body, it takes plenty of time to map it, I don’t know if a complete mapping of it exists. It appears that at the present time there are no comparative studies of the autistic and NT nervous systems.

 

[Outsider]

I've not been following the conversation with Boogs and Outsider and may be this discussion of Hegel and realism which has nothing to do with autism or learning how to support a loved one either, which was the reason I think perhaps for starting the thread may be Boogs is familar with.

So, I would say to say to Boogs don't sweat it and just do your thing if you are not familiar with the topic, just walk away from it.

I hope Outsider got something to help to support their loved one. You are here to learn so just be mindful how you to communicate to some on here who are autistic themselves. You are here to learn your post I took it like your post came with a tone to me when I was posting to the chart., you started talking about stuff like in a dispute, I wasn't even referring to it as well lol. The poster of information can be get bashed on here as well it seems, LOL. No one will tell you how they really feel and you would have no idea. But I am sensitive to peoples language and tone even online I can pick up on it.. You know probably know nothing, but there you got some inside information.

I have seen all sorts online. People posing as someone looking for information for themselves.

I judge that not be your case, and if people find it helpful, read along. Do not tax yourself though and remember what the thread was meant to be about.It is a bit worrying that some people have been affected by reading it, try and use knowledge as a positive thing if you can.

I think there is a misunderstanding between us. I wasn't going at you at all. I didn't like the article and though that its author is a poorly qualified psychologist or something like that. Actually, I'm glad that you brought the article to my attention because I'll use it as an example of incorrect information that autistic people receive from unqualified sources. There is the reason why autistic people often get erroneous information, it being the Mighty Dollar (or Euro). This is one of the topics that I'm planning to address in the future.

I'm not a psychologist, but I'm a data analyst, and I know how to separate bad data from the flow of good information.

 

[Rachie]

I think there is a misunderstanding between us. I wasn't going at you at all. I didn't like the article and though that its author is a poorly qualified psychologist or something like that. Actually, I'm glad that you brought the article to my attention because I'll use it as an example of incorrect information that autistic people receive from unqualified sources. There is the reason why autistic people often get erroneous information, it being the Mighty Dollar (or Euro). This is one of the topics that I'm planning to address in the future.

I'm not a psychologist, but I'm a data analyst, and I know how to separate bad data from the flow of good information.

Thank you for explaining that, it sure can get confusing online at times especially just from writing from a computer.

 

[Outsider]

It is true that I am diagnosed with ASD2 and I don't relate to what was written in that Autism Speaks assessment. Real life doesn't fit into neat boxes.
I have a high IQ and have leant to be a better-than-average communicator, but, I still have considerable challenges due to my condition and the disadvantages that have stemmed from being so different to everyone around me and so sensitive. I didn't have responsive neurotypical parents, I had struggling autistic ADHD one's. Sometimes, people are just too different and we are kind of hated for it, or at the very least, shunned, no matter how much we try to win acceptance and approval.

I don't shun away from anyone who was diagnosed with autism or any other condition. Actually, my friend has something much more serious than autism, which is schizophrenia. One of his symptoms is really bad, it is called delusions of grandeur. all his friends, except for myself, are not regular people, to put it mildly. But he needs my help, and i have succeeded in taking him off a dangerous medication that a court-appointed psychiatrist prescribed to him. To do that we went to the court, and his lawyer out me on the witness stand, which was quite successful.

I know from his experience that the society is not very tolerant of people like him.

 

[Neri]

I don't shun away from anyone who was diagnosed with autism or any other condition. Actually, my friend has something much more serious than autism, which is schizophrenia. One of his symptoms is really bad, it is called delusions of grandeur. all his friends, except for myself, are not regular people, to put it mildly. But he needs my help, and i have succeeded in taking him off a dangerous medication that a court-appointed psychiatrist prescribed to him. To do that we went to the court, and his lawyer out me on the witness stand, which was quite successful.

I know from his experience that the society is not very tolerant of people like him.

I have two sons diagnosed with schizophrenia. It runs at higher percentages in families with autism genes.

I wouldn't say "It's much more serious than autism", both can be very debilitating, both can be very stigmatizing.

My oldest son who has been diagnosed with it is 34, he is successfully off the pharmecutical anti psychotics. He is studying life coaching. He is a very amazing, deeply insightful and compassionate human. My second born son is nearly 33, he has autism AND is diagnosed with schizophrenia, he is on the pharmecuticals, lives in supported accomodation, and needs round the clock care.He has started working recently though. Once a fortnight he does yard work, mowing and the like.

The older one is very likely to make a significant and inspiring contribution due to how he has dealt with the psychosis from his schizophrenia. The younger has cognitive impairment with his autism. He is a great human, but his abilities are much more limited than my older son, who lives independantly.

Admittedly psychosis is often very terrifying, but I wouldn't say Autism is less fraught with suffering. I've suffered from psychosis myself and I find it far more treatable than my autism. I conquored psychosis (also, without the allopathic medication) and I'm still autistic and suffering burn out as we speak, which is incredibly debilitating.

No, comparing which is worse is a matter of perspective and is so contextual that I doubt it is even worth doing.

 

[Jonn]

I have visual processing issues too. But it's not as impactful. I need order and no clutter. I find looking at busy places exhausting. To a lesser extent the TV. And I have photophobia and light flashes feel awful to me. I also have mild face blindness, speaking of talking with people.

Good grief, Charlie Brown!
I think you are another one of my sock-puppet accounts!
I too have face-blindness to some degree.

Visual noise is a big problem for me.
There is a video game called "Borderlands".
I played it with a dear friend for a short time, but couldn't continue bc of the visual information overload.

I think I have finally managed my problems. It was hard to get help if you don't fit into one of the most common molds.

Good to hear.

 

[vergil96]

Good grief, Charlie Brown!
I think you are another one of my sock-puppet accounts!
I too have face-blindness to some degree.

Visual noise is a big problem for me.
There is a video game called "Borderlands".
I played it with a dear friend for a short time, but couldn't continue bc of the visual information overload.


Good to hear.

not so happy high five then!

 

[Boogs]

There is a physical separation between the brain and the nervous system – the brain is placed in the skull, while the nervous system are the nerves that enter the skull. The following Wikipedia article describes the connections between the brain and the nervous system.

For the purposes of what we're discussing, I think a definition based on an almost arbitrary location (almost not completely - the skull provides structural support and protection needed due to the large size of the brain, which is essentially about as strong as a jelly - in other words this little to do with the brains function beyond physical limitations that everyone has (our size and shape and all the factors that limit our physical abilities - just as there's a physical limit on how large an insect or other invertebrate can be).
What's important in my view is function, and how you can separating brain from nervous system in terms of function, that would provide an explanation for the differences between autistic and allistic (non-autistic)?

The corruption of data could happen at any stage; you have mentioned the majority of stages. Nerves could be damaged during a physical mishap such as a fall, complicated birth, and few more. There is no single cause of nerve damage.

Putting aside the (imho) important aspect of defining what you actually mean by damage, this was my argument that brain/nervous system damage invariably results in unpredictable loss of correct function.

I can appreciate and understand that you are most likely going on the evidence that's most meaningful and appropriate in your circumstance, and you may well be quite accurate in your definition of what effects members of your family and the information you've mined that relates to their condition(s), but that doesn't mean you can apply your personal experiences with a whole field of medicine, however much it may seem appropriate from your view.

One of the confounding things about autism is the huge variety of detectable physical differences of which few if any are always common to all autistics and hence inadequate as a reason for autism, and this is, I believe, why diagnosis currently has to rely on behaviour instead, but a behaviour alone isn't sufficient as it can have multiple causes, so it requires a statistical measure of those behaviours found so far that show a significance in those already diagnosed (being no other measures available). I hope you can see this in itself is a chicken/egg situation, but more to the point, just how subjective this is tending toward?

But in addition, how are you actually separating other mental health diagnoses such as schizophrenia from autism (especially as even the specialists in the field are not of a consensus as to even the diagnostics, and especially the causes. We may for example know genetics plays a definite part, but not exactly how those differing gene's come to create the symptom's we categorise as autism?

When I hear an argument based on an unexplained phenomena, I'm afraid (purely from my own view) I'm literally unable to accept it as anything more than a suggestion, and it's only by presenting actual evidence along with a rational explanation as to how that evidence confirms the theory, and most important, providing references to all sources from which vital parts of the explanation come from, so if I wish, I or anyone else can also follow that trail independently.

Anything else remains a suggestion, and the harder I find it to get specific answers to the questions I ask in order to gain an understanding of what's being proposed, the harder I find it to accept without that opportunity for independent appraisal. (This isn't me trying to say I'm more clever or whatever, I simply can't accept things without a logical framework that fits the narrative, whether I want to or not (to the best of my awareness). Doesn't reflect on the idea presented, just reflects on my need for a rational explanation to be able to accept new concepts.

Without something far more specific about what kind of damage you mean (because there are many that couldn't fit this theory - e.g. catastrophic acquired brain injury almost never results in symptoms that on their own could diagnose that damage beyond saying there's something broken in a specific functional area (speech centre, for example), because there are too many causes of those symptoms. Without significant qualification, just saying 'damage' is the cause is meaningless really, and doesn't progress the science.

But more worrying is the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' to describe how the theory could be considered (I'm not saying you are a conspiracy theorist!). If the argument comes from a particular source, then if that argument is to hold any scientific value then that source needs to be qualified and to state it's reasoning clearly. If you can't separate that theory and the evidence it's based on from whatever could point to it being a conspiracy theory, it would appear to have failed a test of validity, because it's relying on something that's unscientifically assumed to be correct and lacks the evidence to support itself. This means it has gaps that are not adequately explained and need to be if it's to show it isn't a conspiracy theory.

BTW, bear in mind there are plenty scientists who will, being humans, lie and cheat for personal gain (and other reasons I'm sure). I've seen some very compelling articles by qualified and experienced scientists that are utter BS, and mendacious in origin, but because they know how to write scientific papers, and are using terms few mortals would understand lacking the years of learning it can take to become expert enough to fully understand them, they can easily produce a piece of writing that subverts and perverts the original science for non-scientific purposes.
The classic "volcanoes produce more carbon pollution than humans" article won a lot of "don't know's" over to the cause of climate-change denial in part because it looked very authentic to a layman, and the vast majority reading it were laymen - the more knowledgeable knew it was BS and ignored it - despite my ignorance on the topic it still took me about two minutes to find out the guy was employed by Australian mining conglomerates ad yet again the adage of "follow the money" distilled things down to the reality of his propaganda very quickly.

 

[Boogs]

MRI brain scans are easy to perform because the brain is contained in a single body location. Nervous system is distributed throughout the body, it takes plenty of time to map it, I don’t know if a complete mapping of it exists. It appears that at the present time there are no comparative studies of the autistic and NT nervous systems.

Sorry, this post has grown far too long (one of my foibles I'm afraid), but I think a better understanding of MRI may help you understand some of my arguments (I won't go into how it works in terms of the physics involved, but you're welcome to ask if interested (though I doubt you would be, being a sane normal human (... does that mean that if you were interested it would make you abnormal and insane? )).

They are possible to perform, I wouldn't call it easy as such, more that it's available and not extremely rare. What's considerably harder is to interpret the results into anything meaningful.

To make a comparison (limited though it is), I presume you are familiar with essentially how neurons work as learning systems, which is what a lot of current AI runs on (among with other methods) and known as a neural network (I'm guessing you know this, but labouring it as you may not have worked on or studied such things, plus for anyone else reading who isn't into IT and tech). Yet despite an AI being wholly constructed by design (i.e. every part it is made of is known and mapped (or mappable at least)) it can't be examined to find out why it did what it did (i.e. the reason for it's answer).

Human nervous systems (inc. brain) contain approx. 21 billion neurons. Each neuron can connect to hundreds of other neurons. What this equates to is trillions of connections each of which can have a different weighting making the brain the most complex functional structures we know of in our universe. I understand these numbers become almost meaningless in what they represent. I don't know about you but I struggle to conceive of what a million of something would look like, multiple trillions...? Hmmm

MRI's are mostly (I may be getting a bit out of date so a pinch of salt here, if anyone can correct me please do) based on nuclear Magnetic Resonance (Imaging) of hydrogen atoms in organic molecules, and this enables them to identify molecular sub-structures that comprise a larger molecule and allow the identification of the presence of that molecule in a specific location. They are not producing an image (of any sort) of a molecule, or the cell it may be a part of, they are simply(?) detecting the presence and concentration of particular molecules.

By focussing on the molecular systems in the brain that process compounds such as glucose for example, which are consumed in proportion to brain activity it allows researchers to map out the level of activity across the brain. But the very idea they could not only map the trillions of connections, not to mention that it would involve more than just measuring activity as done to show data flows across the brain, is really so far beyond what we are capable of yet, anyone making such bold claims based on this need to be providing some very clear and relevant context.

To go back to the use of the word 'damage'. what is the nature of this damage in context of the brain and it's neurons? Because mapping out a single neuron to show exactly how it effects the brains ability to process data is probably a simply impossible task since ever neuron and every connection between those neurons needs to be understood in terms of it's fellow neurons, even if not directly connected. This is why currently MRI's are used to show the flows of activity in the brain, highlighting functional parts of the brain (e.g. showing activity in the visual cortex when it's being used to process visual input) but when damage can mean a single connection of a single neuron (potentially) and yet the thousands of connected neurons also effect that one single connections behaviour and the final output so you'd need to understand those neurons too, but they are in turn connected to...
...can you see where this is going in terms of complexity and how limited our ability to examine the brain still is?


Sorry about all that verbiage (I even exceeded the word count and had to make this two posts! ), I fully understand if that's all a bit unreadable and too much to plough through, but I hope I've presented something that you can understand if not agree with.
I wonder if the source you're working from mentions any of this at all? Any explanation as to the nature of damage and how they've measured it and it's effects so specifically? Or how they used MRI (there are more than one flavour)? It would be interesting to know.
But if it can't be presented without looking like a conspiracy theory, then I have to wonder - if it swims like a duck, and flies like a duck, and looks like a duck, could it be that it is a duck? If it's based on sound science then by definition it should be easy to present rationally and empirically.

 

[Rachie]

Now this is not to be taken personally I think saying schizophrenia is worse than autism is a stigmaising behaviour that is often held onto belief in the public.Now you may have reasons for saying this and should be able to say what you think those reasons are.

Now I would have thought with schizophrenia this condition can be controlled by medication. I just looked it up and seen they are saying on the most trusted Google which is not that it can be controlled by and large by medication and therapy. The thing is getting people to take these things and trust them I would imagine in a number of cases is difficult. Then there are others like barriers to treatment which can make some people present in uneeded really poor states for treatment and some to be living out with their needs not being met in the community. I don't know if there is severity levels with this condition as well. Can they have periods of wellness. I know with pyschosis some only time time or limited number of occurences without medication-just removing offending triggers may help them. Now it becomes more personal Outsider has real life of both experiences with this condition their loved one and people they know with schizophrenia so they have their own inside view and it can be interesting to learn.

With autism there are severity levels and people can struggle in different areas to. There is also limited medication that may help with some symptoms of the disorder. Sometimes Abilfy or Risperdone might be used in some people to try and mofify their behaviour or in some to help try and manage their repetition a medication may be tried that has evidence for it clinically. It is less responsive to treatment and we may try a lot of alternative things for our sensory profiles and they may not always work. There can be issues taking medications as well. So that image you may see of autitisc wanting to headbang their head can be very real when you feel you cannot escape and for sometimes what it is repetitive thinking that can be untrue that you cannot escape in your head and it will pass when it will and may be just laying down in a quiet room till it passes is all you can. Many with a level 1 may seem better off often....working often, a family often just able to hold their own well enough. Some in other levels may be able to do these things, but you see it more in Level 1.

Now I have other co conditions apart from autism. Me myself I have reasons for those opinions looking at Level 1 who may be able feed themselves enough, work and have a family that some who I have been in treatment with for my condition who none of these things can they do. So, I look at them and ok most seem better of than them who cannot do really do these things and may not able to in life either. Now there is a perception to those this condition are well off and not real disorder, but it is not true. It is called an acceptable condition often and it is the most devasting one of all.

I don't know but with MRI scans but they work on this bit of kit and one you used 15 years ago lets say using them today you hope that advancements had been made. Let us face it as well, you can put up some NT brains and neurodivergent and see differences to constrast even without a degree to understand.

Getting to back to the scores and lets admit it, I was only referring to the charts the tables of all 3 severity levels. It seems some went ahead and read the whole page. I think I might have long time but do not remember it even myself and was not commentingg on it, just the tables which seemed ok to me taking in point severity levels do exist and there are some differences.

Now to me at least in the UK, support levels or severity levels? Support for what and who is giving it as well. There is very limited support and I managed to get some as my scores was high enough for them to provide it. To me it reads like say with imagination this is a base a neurtotypical at -1 or 0 so called normal and you are 1 above a neurotypical etc to 3 is the most profoundly. Of course moderate is level 2 depending how you score on the day. Now wanting to be more unwell or affected is not assumed to be a good thing unless it meets your way.

 

[Outsider]

For the purposes of what we're discussing, I think a definition based on an almost arbitrary location (almost not completely - the skull provides structural support and protection needed due to the large size of the brain, which is essentially about as strong as a jelly - in other words this little to do with the brains function beyond physical limitations that everyone has (our size and shape and all the factors that limit our physical abilities - just as there's a physical limit on how large an insect or other invertebrate can be).
What's important in my view is function, and how you can separating brain from nervous system in terms of function, that would provide an explanation for the differences between autistic and allistic (non-autistic)?


Putting aside the (imho) important aspect of defining what you actually mean by damage, this was my argument that brain/nervous system damage invariably results in unpredictable loss of correct function.

I can appreciate and understand that you are most likely going on the evidence that's most meaningful and appropriate in your circumstance, and you may well be quite accurate in your definition of what effects members of your family and the information you've mined that relates to their condition(s), but that doesn't mean you can apply your personal experiences with a whole field of medicine, however much it may seem appropriate from your view.

One of the confounding things about autism is the huge variety of detectable physical differences of which few if any are always common to all autistics and hence inadequate as a reason for autism, and this is, I believe, why diagnosis currently has to rely on behaviour instead, but a behaviour alone isn't sufficient as it can have multiple causes, so it requires a statistical measure of those behaviours found so far that show a significance in those already diagnosed (being no other measures available). I hope you can see this in itself is a chicken/egg situation, but more to the point, just how subjective this is tending toward?

But in addition, how are you actually separating other mental health diagnoses such as schizophrenia from autism (especially as even the specialists in the field are not of a consensus as to even the diagnostics, and especially the causes. We may for example know genetics plays a definite part, but not exactly how those differing gene's come to create the symptom's we categorise as autism?

When I hear an argument based on an unexplained phenomena, I'm afraid (purely from my own view) I'm literally unable to accept it as anything more than a suggestion, and it's only by presenting actual evidence along with a rational explanation as to how that evidence confirms the theory, and most important, providing references to all sources from which vital parts of the explanation come from, so if I wish, I or anyone else can also follow that trail independently.

Anything else remains a suggestion, and the harder I find it to get specific answers to the questions I ask in order to gain an understanding of what's being proposed, the harder I find it to accept without that opportunity for independent appraisal. (This isn't me trying to say I'm more clever or whatever, I simply can't accept things without a logical framework that fits the narrative, whether I want to or not (to the best of my awareness). Doesn't reflect on the idea presented, just reflects on my need for a rational explanation to be able to accept new concepts.

Without something far more specific about what kind of damage you mean (because there are many that couldn't fit this theory - e.g. catastrophic acquired brain injury almost never results in symptoms that on their own could diagnose that damage beyond saying there's something broken in a specific functional area (speech centre, for example), because there are too many causes of those symptoms. Without significant qualification, just saying 'damage' is the cause is meaningless really, and doesn't progress the science.

But more worrying is the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' to describe how the theory could be considered (I'm not saying you are a conspiracy theorist!). If the argument comes from a particular source, then if that argument is to hold any scientific value then that source needs to be qualified and to state it's reasoning clearly. If you can't separate that theory and the evidence it's based on from whatever could point to it being a conspiracy theory, it would appear to have failed a test of validity, because it's relying on something that's unscientifically assumed to be correct and lacks the evidence to support itself. This means it has gaps that are not adequately explained and need to be if it's to show it isn't a conspiracy theory.

BTW, bear in mind there are plenty scientists who will, being humans, lie and cheat for personal gain (and other reasons I'm sure). I've seen some very compelling articles by qualified and experienced scientists that are utter BS, and mendacious in origin, but because they know how to write scientific papers, and are using terms few mortals would understand lacking the years of learning it can take to become expert enough to fully understand them, they can easily produce a piece of writing that subverts and perverts the original science for non-scientific purposes.
The classic "volcanoes produce more carbon pollution than humans" article won a lot of "don't know's" over to the cause of climate-change denial in part because it looked very authentic to a layman, and the vast majority reading it were laymen - the more knowledgeable knew it was BS and ignored it - despite my ignorance on the topic it still took me about two minutes to find out the guy was employed by Australian mining conglomerates ad yet again the adage of "follow the money" distilled things down to the reality of his propaganda very quickly.

It is not within my purview to define what is a damage to the nervous system or brain is; I just follow the guidelines put forward by the experts in the field. If they say that the MRI of a person’s brain doesn’t show any physical damage, I have no other choice but to accept their assessment. It seems to me that there is a consensus in the scientific community on definitions of neurological and brain damages.

 

[Outsider]

Now this is not to be taken personally I think saying schizophrenia is worse than autism is a stigmaising behaviour that is often held onto belief in the public.Now you may have reasons for saying this and should be able to say what you think those reasons are.

Now I would have thought with schizophrenia this condition can be controlled by medication. I just looked it up and seen they are saying on the most trusted Google which is not that it can be controlled by and large by medication and therapy. The thing is getting people to take these things and trust them I would imagine in a number of cases is difficult. Then there are others like barriers to treatment which can make some people present in uneeded really poor states for treatment and some to be living out with their needs not being met in the community. I don't know if there is severity levels with this condition as well. Can they have periods of wellness. I know with pyschosis some only time time or limited number of occurences without medication-just removing offending triggers may help them. Now it becomes more personal Outsider has real life of both experiences with this condition their loved one and people they know with schizophrenia so they have their own inside view and it can be interesting to learn.

With autism there are severity levels and people can struggle in different areas to. There is also limited medication that may help with some symptoms of the disorder. Sometimes Abilfy or Risperdone might be used in some people to try and mofify their behaviour or in some to help try and manage their repetition a medication may be tried that has evidence for it clinically. It is less responsive to treatment and we may try a lot of alternative things for our sensory profiles and they may not always work. There can be issues taking medications as well. So that image you may see of autitisc wanting to headbang their head can be very real when you feel you cannot escape and for sometimes what it is repetitive thinking that can be untrue that you cannot escape in your head and it will pass when it will and may be just laying down in a quiet room till it passes is all you can. Many with a level 1 may seem better off often....working often, a family often just able to hold their own well enough. Some in other levels may be able to do these things, but you see it more in Level 1.

Now I have other co conditions apart from autism. Me myself I have reasons for those opinions looking at Level 1 who may be able feed themselves enough, work and have a family that some who I have been in treatment with for my condition who none of these things can they do. So, I look at them and ok most seem better of than them who cannot do really do these things and may not able to in life either. Now there is a perception to those this condition are well off and not real disorder, but it is not true. It is called an acceptable condition often and it is the most devasting one of all.

I don't know but with MRI scans but they work on this bit of kit and one you used 15 years ago lets say using them today you hope that advancements had been made. Let us face it as well, you can put up some NT brains and neurodivergent and see differences to constrast even without a degree to understand.

Getting to back to the scores and lets admit it, I was only referring to the charts the tables of all 3 severity levels. It seems some went ahead and read the whole page. I think I might have long time but do not remember it even myself and was not commentingg on it, just the tables which seemed ok to me taking in point severity levels do exist and there are some differences.

Now to me at least in the UK, support levels or severity levels? Support for what and who is giving it as well. There is very limited support and I managed to get some as my scores was high enough for them to provide it. To me it reads like say with imagination this is a base a neurtotypical at -1 or 0 so called normal and you are 1 above a neurotypical etc to 3 is the most profoundly. Of course moderate is level 2 depending how you score on the day. Now wanting to be more unwell or affected is not assumed to be a good thing unless it meets your way.

I don’t know what kind of medications autistic people use, if any. My brother uses benzodiazepines to deal with anxiety, but he doesn’t use any medications designed specifically for autism.

You mentioned Abilify but I’m not sure if this medication helps autistic people. My friend’s psychiatrist wants him to take Abilify but he doesn’t want to take it because somebody told him that this is a dangerous drug. I don’t have a definite opinion on this topic. My friend was diagnosed with schizophrenia long time ago, but he is not autistic.

There is a variety of schizophrenic conditions; perhaps, it would be reasonable to list them as separate disorders instead labeling them all as “schizophrenia”. Medical diagnostics is still an emerging field, who knows what the future brings.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

My older brother had mental health issues before he passed diagnosed by my fathers cousin a child psychiatrist.
so I can see your concern.

 

[vergil96]

I don’t know what kind of medications autistic people use, if any.

Neurodivergence means your brain is literally different and you react to medications differently than documented.

You mentioned Abilify but I’m not sure if this medication helps autistic people.

For the reason mentioned above, autistic people are offered all kinds of second-line and third-line treatments.

In the long term, ideally the aim is lifestyle management.

 

[Boogs]

It is not within my purview to define what is a damage to the nervous system or brain is; I just follow the guidelines put forward by the experts in the field.

If you're only passing on what you've decided is the correct theory of autism, if you understand it then just from my view I'd say it is within your purview if you want to argue it's case which is what you're doing.
If you don't understand it (and few do if any) then I'd say it's within your purview to give reference to your sources instead? Obviously you don't have to, but then there's little to talk about regards the topic, as I can't absorb something that has no meaning and no explanation. Without knowing whom you refer to, for all I know it could be the head of the flat earth society!

To just ignore a critical yet mysterious factor that's being used to explain something, by not defining it as a thing at all (the word 'damage' on it's own means little or nothing, it requires context and detail to understand it's impact), makes the discussion pointless - a bit like calling the garage to tell them your car's broken down and when they ask what's wrong you tell them it's damaged but don't say how yet expect a quote.

An 'expert' in the field is anyone and no-one until you say who it is you're referring to. Without references it's just you saying something without saying why. I'm being a bit harsh here though not judging you (only the claim), because unsound conclusions are so prevalent in the field of autism (remember the MMR vaccine lie for instance?), but it's the route of some bad behaviour on some peoples part and can result and excuse discrimination and worse.

If you'd come on with this saying that there's a theory that such-and-such etc. then I'd have less concern, but making such bold claims as above needs backing up or you're (unknowingly I'm sure) injecting bad knowledge into the autisphere (imho of course!). Calling people damaged is one of things some autistic people fight against, it's unproductive and especially without defining what 'damage' actual is, is an attitude that can harm instead. I think it's extremely important to define damage (hence why I'm gouging away at it here in this thread!).

If it's the same source you're using that also suggests that functional MRI scans can map out each individual neuron and all their hundreds of connections they each have, even down to the number of individual molecules in certain parts (which control whether a signal goes down one path or another (to put it simply) - altogether the most complex thing we know of in our universe, by a long chalk) then I call BS on their publication, because that's science fiction in terms of understanding human behaviour and understanding autism.

 

[Outsider]

If you're only passing on what you've decided is the correct theory of autism, if you understand it then just from my view I'd say it is within your purview if you want to argue it's case which is what you're doing.
If you don't understand it (and few do if any) then I'd say it's within your purview to give reference to your sources instead? Obviously you don't have to, but then there's little to talk about regards the topic, as I can't absorb something that has no meaning and no explanation. Without knowing whom you refer to, for all I know it could be the head of the flat earth society!

To just ignore a critical yet mysterious factor that's being used to explain something, by not defining it as a thing at all (the word 'damage' on it's own means little or nothing, it requires context and detail to understand it's impact), makes the discussion pointless - a bit like calling the garage to tell them your car's broken down and when they ask what's wrong you tell them it's damaged but don't say how yet expect a quote.

An 'expert' in the field is anyone and no-one until you say who it is you're referring to. Without references it's just you saying something without saying why. I'm being a bit harsh here though not judging you (only the claim), because unsound conclusions are so prevalent in the field of autism (remember the MMR vaccine lie for instance?), but it's the route of some bad behaviour on some peoples part and can result and excuse discrimination and worse.

If you'd come on with this saying that there's a theory that such-and-such etc. then I'd have less concern, but making such bold claims as above needs backing up or you're (unknowingly I'm sure) injecting bad knowledge into the autisphere (imho of course!). Calling people damaged is one of things some autistic people fight against, it's unproductive and especially without defining what 'damage' actual is, is an attitude that can harm instead. I think it's extremely important to define damage (hence why I'm gouging away at it here in this thread!).

If it's the same source you're using that also suggests that functional MRI scans can map out each individual neuron and all their hundreds of connections they each have, even down to the number of individual molecules in certain parts (which control whether a signal goes down one path or another (to put it simply) - altogether the most complex thing we know of in our universe, by a long chalk) then I call BS on their publication, because that's science fiction in terms of understanding human behaviour and understanding autism.

I know how the researchers arrive to the conclusion that a person has a brain damage or not. They have lists of symptoms that they classify as deviations from normal behavior and see how these abnormalities affect the structure of the brain. They compare MRI brain charts of these people with charts of the people who exhibit normal behavior and classify a patent’s brain as a damaged or not (“normal behavior” is not my term, it seems demeaning to me, but they use it in scientific papers).

They use image recognition software packages to make comparisons of brains. The majority of these packages use cluster algorithms. The algorithms themselves are quite effective and used in medical diagnostics of various forms of cancer and gastrointestinal diseases.

I can describe how cluster algorithms work (I used the cluster software to identify potential customers of several products), but I don’t think that they are relevant to this topic.

My level of expertise with cluster software is high enough to use it for the purpose of comparison of brains of different people. But you cannot expect me to define what normal behavior is and what is not.

The scientific papers that I saw are the product of 2 groups of specialists, psychologists and technical staff who usually have PhD in Applied Math, Electrical Engineering, etc.

I didn’t save the links to these papers because the topic is not of primary importance to me, but I’ll try to locate them in the near future because you asked me to show them to you.

As you know, psychology is not a science in strict definition of the word. As far as I know, there is no single theory of “abnormal behavior” so it would be unrealistic to expect me to develop one.

None of the authors, whose articles I have read, claim that their MRI scans produce pictures of a single neuron. They show clusters of neurons and compare passive and active zones of brains of different individuals to draw conclusions. Active brain zones exhibit higher levels of electromagnetic activity, and MRI scans pick up that activeness.