Talk:Autism spectrum

See also: Wikipedia:Notice board for autism-related topics

For older discussion, see (Archive 2 contains additional links and references)
Archive 1 (May 31 2005)
Archive 2 (August 8 2005)
Archive 3 (June 5 2006)

Increase in diagnoses of autism

In the last paragraph of this section it is mentioned "Due to the recent publicity surrounding autism and autistic spectrum disorders, an increasing number of adults are choosing to seek diagnoses of high-functioning autism or Asperger's syndrome in light of symptoms they currently experience or experienced during childhood. Since the cause of autism is thought to be at least partly genetic, a proportion of these adults seek their own diagnosis specifically as follow-up to their children's diagnoses."

This is the case with myself, although I have not sought a professional diagnosis. As part of the diagnosis of my sons condition it was remarked that some of his behaviours had not been considered by his parents and grandparents as unusual, as I had done similiar at the same age and that it was simply considered part of a family trait. The care worker assigned to my son considered it inappropriate that I should test for autism, as my "coping strategies" or whatever behaviour models I now expressed would render any result meaningless. However, other adults having a child (or that of a relative) diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder may also find a familiar pattern of behaviour in their own development. Again, this may be a subjective self assesment as they have learned to interact within society to an extent that some behaviours may have been (publicly) suppressed or unlearned - so much so that a diagnosis is not possible.LessHeard vanU 14:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that very few seem to be seeking a diagnosis of LFA!LessHeard vanU 14:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A good balance citation would be Lisa Croen's article on the increase observed in California. She demonstrated a parallel decrease in certain "mental retardation" diagnostic categories, suggesting a diagnostic shift rather than a true increase in incidence. --Dan 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Autistical

The word "autistical" is valid. The base word is "autos" for self. Then the suffix "-ist" is added, to become "autist," to mark an action or skill of self, which becomes a noun. Next, the suffix "-ic" is added to signal a character of an action or skill of self, which becomes an adjective. Finally, the suffix "-al" is added to denote the relationship itself, which becomes a noun. These are all valid suffixes found in the dictionary. All base words with all possible prefix and suffix combinations are not listed in common dictionaries, which would be not pratical if an attempt was made. — Dzonatas 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It would, however, be practical to do in a digital format if that were truly the case. Which it isn't. The word does not exist. "Autistic-like" is the appropriate term. English is not Build Your Own Lexicon.

ZagrebFraggle 14:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure a software program could be written to automatically combine all possible prefixes and suffixes. Consider that a dictionary lists recognized suffixes and prefixes, it assumes one knows how to combine them with root words to expand ones vocabulary beyond the dictionary itself with recognized elements of words contained within it. With the expressions used in the article, the diagnoses is austical, which makes sense. The diagnoses is not "autistic-like" because the diagnoses itself does not have such autistic property. The diagnoses isn't even "autistic," which still refers to such non-existent property. Consider the words "topic" and "topical." Another example, "topic sentences" and "topical guides" are common, but it would be quite different to find "topic guides" or a "topical sentence." Even "topic-like guides" doesn't make any sense. — Dzonatas 23:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The term is "autistic" because that is the term that used. If english made sense then I'm sure you are right that it would be "autistical", but english isn't good at sticking to rules. The correct term is the one which is used. If you were creating a new term then you would be right to build it up in the way you describe, but often people don't and you end up with something that doesn't make sense, but it is still the word, whether it makes sense or not. The diagnosis is definitely "autistic". "Autistical" isn't in the dictionary or in usage so it is not a word.

Your example is irrelevant for the simple reason that you are talking about a completely different word. It's like looking at the word "through" and "cough" and assuming that "cough" should be pronounced "coo" since the "ough" in "through" is pronounced "oo". If english made sense it would work like that (it is possible there is a good, though not very obvious, reason for the difference in this case, but there are plenty of other examples that could be chosen in any area of the language, this is just the first that came into my head), but it doesn't work like that, demonstrating that you can't just take a rule that works on one word and apply it to another, because there might be some pointless or illogical difference for the word you are applying it to. Raoul Harris 18:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand you disagree. However, the amount of trees killed to produce enough paper for everybody to have their own copy of a dictionary and to agree the word exists is illogical. That is the basic argument presented here why such words don't exist. There are no written rules that state that the word "autistical" can not exists. Likewise, there are no rules that state words like "autistic" can exists. Authors only wrote dictionaries, but they did not define the extent of the English language. They never have and never will be able to define such dimension of language. They can only present popular choices. If you wanted to argue that "autistic" is more of a popular word than "autistical," I would agree. That is not the case you presented however. The case presented is against "autistical" is that "we should use only popular words and not ones that are derived technically correct." I understand. It is common to derive words and not new terms. The word "autistic" is a derived word as much as "autistical." No new term was invented, which if it was your point would be valid. — Dzonatas 00:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I still think a language is defined by usage. We'll just have to disagree on it. I won't object to you using "autistical", but I'll stick with "autistic". Raoul Harris 07:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

CAN and AGRE

Somebody inserted links to CAN and the AGRE project. I would favor both of them to be removed. If people disagree, I would at least suggest that the AGRE link be moved to Causes of autism or Heritability of autism. There are also some remaining links to ABA, which I would favor to move to Autism therapies. --Rdos 07:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

DSM

Since when is the DSM not widely recognized in the US? Don't get me wrong, I'm not standing in defence of the DSM because I agree that it has huge flaws in parts, but to say it's not widely recognized in the US and is completely ignored in england is blatantly POV. I'd revert, but it's such a nice article I didn't want to just barge in there :) Sparkleyone 06:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I took it out. Me

Missing paragraph (maybe)

I would like to point out a single word on a line that may or may not belong to the article. Moreover appears just prior the subheading DSM definition. Could be the start of a paragraph or a stray word! I started to scroll back through the edits hoping to discover the reason why it is there but soon discovered it could take a long time for me to do that. HJKeats 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merge with "Autism Mercury" article

I would be against the merging of the above article with this, as I do not believe that it adheres to NPOV policy/practice. LessHeard vanU 20:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The current state of the autism mercury article is absolutely ludicrously in violation of NPOV. We don't put disclaimers at the top of articles and then state the beliefs of organizations. If that theory is at all widespread, a blurb on that belief as a theory could be added. The autism mercury article should be either merged into the autism article in abbreviated and NPOV form, or deleted entirely. Caterpillar 36 23:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That article needs massive re-editing and then it needs to go under Controversies in autism, not here. --Bluejay Young 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Definately agree 100% with Bluejay --Zeraeph 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, didn't know about that one. Definitely agree.-Caterpillar 36 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Autism and poverty?

What is this all about? I'm about this close to removing it, but want to see what others think. This person didn't cite a source or give any sort of references to back it up. It sounds like original research, or just surmise and conjecture on the part of a single individual. I'm not saying that autistic people may have difficulties with employability and living independently. Some do and some don't. I'm just saying this person needs to check his facts and be certain they understand what belongs in a Wikipedia article and what doesn't. It almost sounds like the subtext is "we've got to cure this thing or we're going to be deluged with all these unemployable autistics being a drain on our social services." --Bluejay Young 06:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim that it is the fourth leading cause of poverty in the world needs to be cited, or it will be consigned to the dustbin. There is another strong relationship between poverty and autism, however, that shows up in demographic analyses. Although the relationship between environmental factors and autism is hotly disputed by opinion leaders in the medical community, where most of the emphasis is focused on an expanding array of known genetic vulnerability factors, there is little doubt that exposure to mercury and heavy metals contributes to the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders, in particular those children who do not excrete heavy metals efficiently. Sources of heavy industrial pollution, often containing high concentrations of heavy metals such as mercury and lead, tend to be concentrated to low income neighborhoods. Heavy pollution in blue collar neighborhoods, in turn, compounds other environmental risk factors for children living in poverty, which include nutritional deficits and the mercury and aluminum preservatives and adjuvants contained in vaccines. Ombudsman 06:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and get rid of it... until it has some decent citations it should not be reinserted. Claims like "though no studies have been done, it has been thought that rates of autism is higher in developing communities" especially need to have some authoritative references as to who is making such speculations. Sparkleyone 08:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I have been even bolder and put it back there is no reason to believe poverty causes autism (WHERE ON EARTH did that come from?) but ample proof that autism causes poverty (try living with it as a parent or Autie some time) though I am going to whip out the "fourth greatest" thing now, THAT seems unlikely there aren't enough autistic per capita to even come close --Zeraeph 10:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, on reading the section closely, though the contention that Autism causes poverty is correct and relevant, to coin a phrase "that was NASTY". I've pared it down to the bare relevant bones and hope there will be more to add in future to flesh it out. --Zeraeph 10:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It should not be in this article in the first place. And who says its true? I don't Simply south 11:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok so give me some verifiable evidence from somewhere reputable to suggest that Autism never causes poverty and it can go. --Zeraeph 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's rather fallacious. You could claim that anything from having red hair to liking cheese is a cause of poverty, by the same rhetoric, and insist on its inclusion because "you can't give me verifiable evidence to suggest that it never causes poverty."

More to the point, why is it all right to make the case for an autism/poverty connection with no verifiable evidence, but demand verifiable evidence from anyone who seeks to disprove it?

Your point is valid in a sense. Disabilities *in general,* of any kind, are correlated with poverty because many people are unable to obtain adequate services; not all disabled people can work in conventional job environments, and many who can are unable to find a job which guarantees a living wage. It's just not specific to autism.

Also, there are a number of autistic people who have difficulty obtaining a diagnosis *because* they are seen as 'too successful' or 'too functional' to be autistic. There are people who fit the criteria for autism or Asperger's but go unrecognized their whole lives, because they're successful in their chosen line of work and so are seen as just being 'eccentric' or 'strange.' --Sethrenn 02:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Make that, anything can cause poverty really. I'm just surprised and shocked at the figure you're giving Simply south 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

HELL NO!! That "fourth greatest" thing is GONE...that was just silly --Zeraeph 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Before getting into the debate over the subject matter, I would first ask why it has been included in the Other pervasive developmental disorders section anyway (and in the middle. too)?

As for the premise that it propounds... even if there were cited references and sources I would still regard it as a sweeping statement that could not be true for a large percentage (perhaps a majority) of cases. Whilst there is an argument that profoundly autistic individuals may not have the financial/economic opportunities of many neurotypicals, this would be true of anyone affected by a debiliating disability. Since the autistic spectrum covers a variety of conditions, behaviour models, communication abilities, and the like, then it is difficult for any one statement to be deemed to be true for all cases. Even the diagnosis (and existence of) autism is a matter of dispute within the medical profession!

I'm sorry, but I see no reason why such a comment is relevant within the autism article. In the cases where it is true, then it is no more a hinderance to financial security than other physical, mental, psychological or other condition. It is not peculiar enough to justify inclusion in this article. LessHeard vanU 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely an aspect doesn't have to be peculiar to justify inclusion?

With only 12% of people with Asperger's Syndrome able to sustain full time employment (the figures for High Function Autistics must be similar, and lower function autistics will be even less), I'd say it's pretty obvious that poverty is guaranteed for the vast majority of adult autistics. In addition, as yet, there is no country in the world making adequate public provision for child autistics and the overwhelming cost of making up that deficit from private resources guarantees relative or actual poverty for most families that include an autistic.--Zeraeph 20:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Where in the world are you getting these statistics from? Can you at least cite a source? --Sethrenn 02:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnard et al 2001 [1] and I was slightly wrong as it states all HFA (including AS) are 12% in full time employment, the figure for low function is 2% - shocked the heck out of me too, I thought the score was higher than that. The lack of public provision of resources for Autistic children is widely documented and the fact that the money to make up this deficit from private resources doesn't grow on trees is common knowledge. --Zeraeph 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's statistics for diagnosed autistics in the UK-- as stated above, my experience is that a great many *undiagnosed* autistics are in employment, people who can pass enough to be seen as just "odd" or "eccentric." --Sethrenn 16:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that Sethrenn, but there a probably at least as many homeless and/or indigent, mis-diagnosed and permanently resident in mental hospitals or prisons, trouble is you can't quantify that invisible figure until it becomes visible. If the right resources are made available I have no doubt the majority of autistics would be more than capable of supporting themselves in comfort, but the right resources aren't available yet.--Zeraeph 16:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What "resources"? (I hate to stick in a sentence in the middle of text but that seems to be how this section is made from.) Skinnyweed 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't peculiar, then that should be stated. As is, the section appears to indicate autism as being a peculiar, rather than a particular, barrier to to employment and financial reward, or a financial burden upon the individuals carers. To stretch the argument, a precociously gifted child may impinge upon the finances of carers where state or commerce will not contribute.

I don't get your point, Autism is an established barrier to employment and financial reward as well as an established considerable ongoing expense to families that cannot alkl afford it, ergo it is a cause of poverty. --Zeraeph 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of Asperger's, and thus the peculiar obstacles to gaining entry to the workplace, but I am familiar with the difficulty that those on the Autistic Spectrum may face. As I have argued elsewhere, there may indeed be a high percentage of individuals who may have otherwise been diagnosed as higher functioning autistic within the spectrum whose coping stategies and behaviour suppression have allowed them to participate in society to such a degree that the diagnosis has not been sort or considered. On that basis I would contest the assumption that HFA individuals would return the same figures for those with Asperger's with regard to employment.LessHeard vanU 21:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't realise they are on the Autistic Spectrum then you REALLY don't have any knowledge of Asperger's...see above, I was wrong, the figure actually included Asperger's with HFA at 12% in full employment.

My son has ASD, not Asperger's, and there is not yet a definative finding in where he falls in functionality (since he tests severe, moderate and mild across differing catagories and some are still in flux). Therefore, I have not concerned myself with the unique aspects of Asperger's. I am aware that Asperger's is on the spectrum, it was a case of my not writing "...those others on the Autistic Spectrum..." by omission.LessHeard vanU 12:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that autism is not a barrier to financially rewarding employment opportunity nor a means of financial burden for the family in many cases, only that it has not, is not, nor is it likely to be true for all those so diagnosed (which do not make up the all of those who are liable to be affected by the condition). LessHeard vanU 21:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all, just the vast majority...of course it shouldn't be, and doesn't need to be, but to implement that potential would require CHANGE. Until that change happens Autism causes poverty. --Zeraeph 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a less general rewording is required - as well as an appropriate place within the article.LessHeard vanU 21:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that's bothering me is the un-backed-up assertion that "autistics are (or can be) vulnerable to any form of deception". That must be backed up. By itself it's just the writer's opinion. Maybe an educated or considered opinion, perhaps from personal experience, but you'll have to cite something that shows that gullibility is an intrinsic feature of autism. A lot of my problem as an autistic is that because of my personal presentation, people throughout my life have assumed that I was a patsy who would fall for anything, and have spent a great deal of energy warning me against those who would "take advantage" of me. In fact, I have always been deeply suspicious of other people's motives, largely because of the way I was treated by my father. He believed that I would neither notice or remember, because he thought I did not perceive reality; that I was "in my own world" as he said. (One reason I detest that phrase as applied to autism.) --Bluejay Young 02:40, 6 June 2006

My edit, that was a mellowing of a rather peculiar previous assertion, in preference to total removal, not a big deal, retained for discussion and expansion into something fuller and more accurate. It's very true that where Autistics can be more gullable in some ways they can be less gullable in others. As far as I can see they can be almost immune to many common forms of emotional manipulation simply because their literality of thinking prevents their knee from jerking on cue. --Zeraeph 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Profoundly autistic persons may be as capable of observation and critical thinking as you are, but have the same difficulties with people who either seek to warn them of danger as if they didn't know it existed, or who actually try to defraud or con them. A.M. Baggs, who is about twenty-five and profoundly autistic, writes about being approached on the street with the whole "want some candy, little girl?" line. You can't judge an autistic's ability to comprehend and think critically based on whether or not they can talk, move, or otherwise conduct themselves as a non-autistic would. My guess is that autistics who are that gullible are ones who have been made overly dependent on others on the assumption that they cannot learn to function independently; who are actually taught not to think for themselves. --Bluejay Young 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you have made a big relevant point there (one that sets my teeth on edge reliably too "learned cluelessness" ).

So how else would you define the special vulnerabilities of autistics? --Zeraeph 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The special vulnerabilities of autistics have a great deal to do with how we are perceived by others, many of whom presume to speak for us and decide for us what we need or want. Unrealistic expectations are foisted upon autistics from a very early age, and it all has to do with the fact that we perceive, behave, learn, and acquire language differently from non-autistic people. The language thing in particular is a major issue. I think that many of us are made to be more disabled than we need to be by programs that are based on a presumption to help us, but approach us from the perspective of disorder. The idea that autism requires "treatment and intervention" implies that autism is sickness rather than difference. We may internalize that message and come to believe ourselves to be broken and in need of fixing. Compounding the problem is the assumption by other people that we are broken, that we cannot speak or think for ourselves. This is what has to change. --Bluejay Young 12:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To include in this article a separate section entitled "Autism and Poverty" is to suggest that there exists an established connection between autism and poverty. The discussion above supports no such established connection. While it may not be unreasonable to suggest that some with autism may suffer a financial disadvantage, without an established connection it is POV. To draw an analogy, we might just as well add a section entitled "Autism and Celebrity," inasmuch as some people with autism garner special attention. Clearly this would be POV, and so is this section on "Autism and Poverty." It should be deleted.--Leftymn 09:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now read the source given by Zeraeph [2]. I regret that I find the specifics unreliable, since the data is sourced from interest groups with no indication of independant analysis. Moreover, the examples are from respondees to a questionnaire - only 38% of questionnaires were returned, which would indicate that the majority did not believe that their concerns were being addressed and/or that the respondees were particularly motivated. As such the survey is not representative. Plus, the National Autistic Society - whilst an admirable group, who have been very useful in regard to my son - is a charitable rather than a statutory organisation (meaning that its members are those who identify that they have a need for its services, and do not represent all of those with, or care for those with, an ASD) with an advocacy policy. Wonderful people who do a great deal of good, but not independant enough for encyclopediac consideration. Lastly, this survey was UK specific and as autism is a medical condition then social/economic considerations should not form (a major) part of the article unless it can be shown that the same is true cross-culturally (I imagine it could be very much worse in some societies, yet less so in others).

I initially came to Wikipedia via this article and, whilst not a major contributor, wish it to remain a resource of rigorously accredited information. I feel that the section regarding poverty and autism is not up to standard.LessHeard vanU 10:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If only 12% of HFAs are in full-time employment, isn't it logical deduction to say that most are in poverty? Or have they got other means of obtaining money? Skinnyweed 11:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly...unless they all have "rainman" type abilities which I somehow doubt...currently independent adult autism is a ticket straight into poverty unless you are very, very lucky. It shouldn't be, and with the right resources and understanding it WOULDN'T be, but currently it IS, and as that is possibly the single most significant factor in the real lives of most independent autistic adults it has to be mentioned. Wikipedia is also about "keeping it real".

However, I also agree that as a section it is currently abysmal (if not worse). I just took out the inappropriate stuff and gave it a quick polish, and that was all that was left. It needs expanding to explain the reasons for the connection between Autism and poverty properly...and LessHeard...until it rains again I have a LOAD of outdoor work on my hands and no time to do that alone - yet. --Zeraeph 13:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just realised I could do the above by adding the poverty to the Autistic adults and doing a little overdue tweaking and polishing...I think it makes the same point, if anything more effectively, as poverty is an integral PART of autistic life, not seperate from it.

For the record, I fully belive that it shouldn't be that way and it doesn't HAVE to be that way, but without greater understanding and better resources, it will go on being that way. --Zeraeph 13:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like there aren't enough hard statistics to warrant including this bit about autism and poverty in the article then. Maybe it should go in "Controversies about autism". --Bluejay Young 12:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I seriously doubt it's a 'controversy'. Skinnyweed 19:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This (http://www.sdlp.ie/prlewsleyspeechtoautismsociety.shtm) says something along the lines of "We have seen figures of 32,000 children in Northern Ireland in severe poverty and poverty is not just about finance." Skinnyweed 19:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This (http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/008_2006-04-24/han008_1310-E.htm) says ' In our country thousands of families are going into poverty because their children have autism. The provinces simply do not have the resources to provide the therapy that is required to assist children with autism.' Skinnyweed 19:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank heavens you found other sources, this point is SO important.--Zeraeph 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Increase in diagnoses

There is a very strange statement that appears suddenly in this section, and is never mentioned later.

There is little public research on the effects of in vitro fertilization on the number of incidences of autism.

Well, why should there be? What about eating bananas and autism - has anyone investigated that?

Since this doesn't seem to be related in any way to the rest of the article, and there's no argument why it's relevant, it just looks like someone pushing an anti in-vitro campaign. Getting ready to delete it... Deuar 14:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Adult child?"

This term, under the "Autistic adults" subheading, comes across as derogatory, suggesting that autistic people never grow up; that autistic adults are characteristically immature. Rephrasing... --GregE 06:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It may not have meant it the way you think; it may have meant child as in son of rather than little person. Regardless, 'adult child' (little person) is an accurate description of an autistic person. Skinnyweed 01:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Um... before you commit to that, you might want to have a look at this... --Bluejay Young 22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Celebrating Autism"(npr)

I'm not saying the link doesn't belong, just that the story is disturbingly delusional. Its an uncritical puff piece about self delusion, aspergers and autism is something to be proud of? Thats just absurd, having social deficits making navigation through society and life much harder is not something to be proud of or to shield from treatments. you can't put a positive spin on just anything. (comment added by User:71.141.107.4 11:12 29 June 2006)

It is a journalistic piece, rather than a debate, so it is always likely to be mildly biased. It is also using a very small example of individuals. I am surprised about the title, as one persons celebration of his condition is just one paragraph in the piece - but that is a question for the journalist.LessHeard vanU 20:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:71.141.107.4 must be autistic as he thinks he knows how autistics should feel about themselves. And he further seems to think that shame and not pride is the appropriate feeling. There's a reason why the vast majority of autistics you find on the internet are anti-cure. And people who want to learn about autism would do well to listen to autistics. They instead prefer to take in the unsubstantiated interpretations of outsiders looking in. Neurodivergent 13:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I do not see how this adds to the debate. Who decides what is "appropriate"?LessHeard vanU 23:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Use whatever term you prefer. The question is: Psychologically, is it preferable for an autistic to feel pride or shame? These are the kinds of questions psychology professionals should ask, but suprisingly, they don't. Neurodivergent 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Autism and sexuality

On this person's talk page it says I've heard many describe slower maturation in Aspies, perhaps not being fully mature until their mid-30s. It would be a logical consequence of this slower maturation if males also were attracted to much younger girls. Is there any truth in this? Or is it just one of Rdos's crackpot theories? Skinnyweed 01:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

DEFINATELY one of Rdos's crackpot theories!

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest slower sexual maturation, in some cases the contrary applies. There is sometimes a problen with parents trying to delay maturation.

The only thing I will say is that, just as aspies are more likely to be able to relate emotionally, successfully to (aka "get it on with") someone from a different culture (because in such a case diversity and difference is a positive expectation in both parties, not a source of alienation), it is probable that a relationship with someone much older or younger would also stand a similar chance of success for similar reasons. --Zeraeph 02:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hah! You should see what some of the crackpots out there are proposing as a "cure" for autistic children -- and some parents are taking it seriously. Their idea is that autistics mature sexually way too early, not late, due to excessive testosterone. Based on Baron-Cohen's (questionable) "extreme male brain" idea, these men are proposing that autistic girls and boys are prone to experience puberty at a very early age (I'm talking three or four) and need injections of Lupron to reverse it and cure the autism. You think I'm kidding, check out some of the stuff that woman's linked to. --Bluejay Young 04:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Incredible. I'm an aspie, and I matured sexually neither early nor late. Perhaps some do mature late or early (but not that early), but the same is true of some neurotypical people and needn't be taken as a characteristic of autism. Noneofyourbusiness 22:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OR? Uncited and illogical - what should it say?

Article: "As a consequence, many "high-functioning" autistic persons, and autistic people with a relatively high IQ, are underdiagnosed"

That has enough things wrong with it that I can't see how one would fix it... Is there anything citeable and possible to replace it with? Midgley 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's something obvious that might nevertheless be OR. Clearly, autism will be missed more often among those with high IQ than among those with low IQ. Neurodivergent 18:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

autistic beautiful ????

I find this here and there.That autistics are on average concidered more beautiful.It suposed to be a consequence of the litel expresivness of the face ,or something like that.Has somebody ,sources on this ,and maybe some sort of beter explanation.--87.65.156.247 00:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[3] (Unsigned)

It's purely anecdotal though. Neurodivergent 18:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

DSM definition

A recent edit in this section proclaims "These are rules of thumb and may not necessarily apply to all diagnosed autistics." I was originally inclined to strike this comment out as not germaine to the section, which is only concerned with the definition, but hesitated since I am not familiar with the DSM. Is this a particularly US publication, or a western one? Is it an authorative text? Can this distinction be made within the article, and an indication whether the definition is then the legal/medical basis of the diagnosis. I apologise if the distinction(s) is made elsewhere in the article.LessHeard vanU 21:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Individual autistics vary greatly from one other, so it's important to note that the DMS definition isn't perfect. Noneofyourbusiness 21:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The DSM is intended to be an authoritative, consensus statement of the medical community about how to diagnose various conditions in mental health. Many underlying conditions produce a variety of symptoms, but not every person with the underlying condition will experience all the symptoms. For mental conditions where the underlying cause is not known, diagnosis requires looking at symptoms and comparing the results with the "rules of thumb" in the DSM. -- Beland 17:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, on the basis of the above the edit I mentioned appears germaine.LessHeard vanU 21:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Autism and blindness

I added the merge tag to this article due to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autism and blindness. If you feel there's anything useful on the article in question that can be merged here, please do so and then change that article to a redirect here. Thanks. - Bobet 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)