Wired on Autism in the Valley 861
digaman writes: "The December issue of Wired magazine contains an article of mine on what appears to be an upsurge in autism among the children of programmers and engineers in Silicon Valley: "The Geek Syndrome." A complicated issue, explored in depth. I hear the California Department of Developmental Services is launching a research project to investigate the questions raised in the article."
Anyone remember logic? (Score:1, Insightful)
Premise: "Nick" is acting weird.
Premise: His parents are software engineers.
Conclusion: Nick's behavior is an effect of his parents' occupation.
BBBZZZZZZT. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. In other words, correlation does not equal causation. It's the same logic that says: "You watch a violent movie, you're going to be a violent person." Really? How do you make that link? You can't. There are too many other factors involved, just like in little "Nick's" case.
Watch out for bad research and its conclusions.
Re:read the article (Score:1, Insightful)
ADHD (Score:2, Insightful)
ADHD is basically a kid whos not normal, who rebels.
If you rebel, if you arent normal, these doctors will find something to diagnose you with, be it ADHD, or Autism, they will find some stupid excuse. And really this is like abuse to the kids, first it ruins their self esteem to hear doctors and teachers and students treat them like they have some kinda real disease like downs syndrome etc, second, they get drugged up so much in school that if they do manage to learn a damn thing in school its a miracle.
Instead of finding stupid names for kids who are simply diffrent, first it was nerds, then geeks, then ADHD, then autistic, why not just accept a few things, first, everyone learns diffrent. Second, everyone develops at their own pace, some people dont learn to speak for the first 5 years of life and end up becoming famous writers. Really, its a matter of accepting the fact that when it comes to dealing with kids and teaching, theres no standard way to do it, you do what works for each kid, of course, when classrooms are packed with 50 kids you are going to do what works for the "generic" kid.
This is not a disease.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Love or Hate him, virtually everyone of those articles about Gates having Asperger's use it to sneer - I guess technically-handicapped have got to try and make themselves feel superior again somehow.
This perception of Asperger's is similar in someways to Dyslexia - also perceived of as a handicap or disease but in fact perfectly normal. Some recent research indicates that a common cause of dyslexia seems to happen because of the selective death of particular brain cells - but the flip side of this is that these people seem to be extremely good at visual-spatial tasks and particularly making mental maps. It's postulated that it would be a great advantage to a tribe of hunter/gatherers to have a few such members among their company.
Similarly to Asperger's, in the age of the purly written word dyslexia became a handicap - but as our use of media becomes richer and more varied increasingly the ability to think visually is becoming an advantage again (and we have spell-checkers now too!)
Bottom line - evolution has equipped the human mind to come in many different flavours - it's our definition of 'normal' which is incorrect, not people with Asperger's, Dyslexia or any on of a myriad of other different mental gifts.
Article makes sense, you don't... (Score:4, Insightful)
Premise: "Nick" is acting weird.
Premise: His parents are software engineers.
Conclusion: Nick's behavior is an effect of his parents' occupation.
Let's explore your simple minded interpretations of the article using some of the context from the article.
this is evolution of mankind (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't fear the change. Embrace it.
anybody here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I am in my late 20's and can honestly say that I am of average or even above-average intelligence, and pretty much fit the description of any of those children. I will admit that pop-culture diagnoses like those in the article are like reading horoscopes alot of the time, but then I see this "social interactions, motor skills, sensory processing, and a tendency toward repetitive behavior" and "Marked impairment in the use of nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction."
It friggin sucks to be like this when others are around. I feel fine when its just me, alone. Then I am "normal". Or maybe it's all another marketable designer disease to capitalise on an information overloaded society. All those wired kids from (wealthy) wired parents ready for the diagnosing. Maybe our species is slowly evolving into specialised groups. We have races that developed along climatological and geographical lines to adapt to the environment, so I have no problem thinking that maybe this is just darwinian environmental pressures in action. There is alot of information out there, and alot of it is highly specialised, requiring a certain mind ( or wetware configuration?)
I don't mean that people like this are superior or anything, although in the short-term it may have an advantage in our economy, but that is only on the scale of a few generations. I am thinking more in terms of ourselves as a species. We have "geeks", "atheletes", "artists" and the ever-numerous "sheeple", which have always been around to an extent, maybe our species is specialising in order to cope with the amount of information neccessary to survive.
How many people can run a triathalon, code up a small mail agent, cook a gourmet dinner, perform simple surgery if the need arose, interpret the latest precedent-setting court case, sculpt a piece of greco-roman inspired art, and read a book to your kids at night? I don't know about you, but I have hard time just getting out of the bed, my stupid body refuses to hear the damn alarm clock sometimes
Anyways, I have shit social skills, avoid the company of others, and am basically a misfit. I am not pulling in the huge IT bucks, so despite my intelligence, I won't get the sexy AND intelligent wife, fast car, and nice clothes (in that order please).
So, how many slashdotters out there are well-adjusted, sociable geeks (Hmm, oxymoron?), and how many of you are/have been diagnosed as being "different" from your fellow homo sapiens?
< raises hand >
Psychology and the scientific method (Score:5, Insightful)
Articles like this are exactly the kind of crap that fail to distinguish correlation from causation. That is assuming that there is some empirical evidence to suggest that there is an actual rise, a fact which the article supports with:
[For Rick Rollens, former secretary of the California Senate and cofounder of the MIND Institute, the notion that there is a frightening increase in autism worldwide is no longer in question. "Anyone who says this epidemic is due to better diagnostics," he says, "has his head in the sand."]
rant
Now theres an objective analysis from a double blind researcher NOT. And only last night I saw the South park episode where all the kids are given Ritilin. Alternative therapy - gee well maybe there aint nothin' wrong with most of them so just leave them alone and let them work out via peer groups that you shouldn't wear stupid clothes for a bet. Most of us geeks got a bit of a kicking when we were at school and whilst it is not ideal it is pretty much human behaviour 101 that we attack that which makes us feel insecure and from my experience the most attacking were the most insecure so "get over it"
\rant
Autism and Asperger's Syndrome (Score:2, Insightful)
I've worked with children with these problems, both prior to and during my PhD in neuroscience. The rate data cited appear to indicate a combination of genetic and environmental causes similar to those seen for most diseases, including most cancers. Note that untangling environmental and genetic causes can be difficult--twins share a womb, so maternal effects (which are environmental) might be scored as genetic.
On the other hand, genetic susceptability, triggered by something environmental, seems indicated. The mechanism could be one of a couple of processes: neural development or the development of neural connectivity (the brain adjusts its general connectivity to handle the range of sensory input that it receives, and it also rewires itself slowly during learning). The evidence for miswiring in these syndromes is strong enough that it probably isn't just something learned, but instead something about the development of the brain. And that's bad. It could reflect patterns of stimuli, but it more likely involves chemistry.
It's definitely worth following up.
Re:Good point but (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF does that mean? There are many inherited diseases. For example, Thallasemia - the most common monogenic (single gene) disorder in the world. Or sickle cell disease. Or Cyctic fibrosis. Or Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Or Prader-Willi Syndrome. Or DiGeorge syndrome. Or Angelmann syndrome. I could go on....
All these are considered "syndromes" or "Diseases", despite the fact thay are at least in part "genetic". In fact, many of the worlds most common diseases (including autism) are the result of a combination of environmental and inherited factors - so called "multifactorial" disorders. Such as diabetes, heart disease, or cancer.
Instead of focusing on labeling people and giving them drugs
Labelling people is actually pretty important step of helping them. For example:
Doctor1: "this man need's help"
Doctor2: "Whats wrong with him?"
Doctor1: "Er, he's got that thing, you know, the doobree, where they are, er, a bit shy. Talk funny, oh c'mon... you must know it!"
Who said we were just giving them drugs? From the article
"In the last 20 years, significant advances have been made in developing methods of behavioral training that help autistic children find ways to communicate. These techniques, however, require prodigious amounts of persistence, time, money, and love. Though more than half a century has passed since Kanner and Asperger first gave a name to autism, there is still no known cause, no miracle drug, and no cure. "
if they end up becoming the next einstiens is it worth it?
Yes. There's no point in being a genius if you are unable to communicate your idea's. Or if you are isolated, unhappy and socially inept. I would much rather be socially included in society, than be a genius outsider.
fascinating (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a _good_ article. It covers all the bases- has the guts to see that people on the spectrum are capable of things that stun and astonish NT humans- and isn't afraid to also confront the fact that this comes at a price- if we breed as if we were some superior race, we are FSCKED, producing children who... well, if we are 'overclocked' then our potential kids can be 'thermal meltdown', virtually incapable of functioning. A daunting thought... and we are the LEAST capable of humans, as far as dealing with heavy personal needs of others.
We've always been around. The whole stereotype of the Eccentric German Professor is pure autism. Albert Einstein dealt with this sort of thing- for instance, he couldn't remember his own phone number. "Why should I when I can write it down?" People say that what he could remember, most people couldn't even imagine- at the same time, the guy couldn't remember his own phone number! It's not simple eccentricity or wilful decision to flout the expectations of society. It's NOT just PR.
My favorite way of describing it is subroutines. Most people are more pre-emptive- those of us who are far out along the spectrum can hit amazing peaks of 'processing' but don't necessarily have the control over when it's happening. If that happens to me, I might go and get something and immediately not know what I was getting. At the same time, I also don't know what my mind is processing- it's in a subroutine, doing something that I don't know what it is. Solving some problem I might think of another day. In the immediate moment, I'm standing there looking like a fool. If it was just going to the fridge or whatever this would be less of a problem. I don't drive anymore- it took me too long to figure out that I dropped into subroutines even at the wheel- and five seconds between 'interrupts' isn't enough for driving. Fortunately I never hurt anybody- I'm not risking it any longer, license expired of old age and I'm not getting a new one.
What do I get to balance out these problems? Some stuff [airwindows.com] that's paid off a lot of the stress of getting this far. Some things that are subjective, some that are objective. Thankfully, self-awareness: we're as capable of self-awareness and wisdom as anybody, given the right information. I'm 33, so for most of my life the information I was given was 'you're just not trying to get along!' or some such crap. Better to know the truth with its curses AND blessings.
Nothing like a personal interest... anyhow, I think this is a really good article.
Marriage? Children? Not my problem- I ended up failing at being heterosexual, and discovering I could be gay just as easily, even be considered a hottie (most unexpected!). I've ended up mated with a guy, no desire to produce or raise children- if it wasn't for that I'd doubtless be a bachelor until I died. My 'line' will die with me.
I wonder how many of the important Free Software people are autistic? Is it that a level of autism ironically helps people understand and see deeper social benefit precisely BECAUSE we don't have the whirl of normal social interaction to distract us from what we're really doing? For a Bill Gates, this turns him to the dark side and he responds by rejecting it- 'OK, all the toys must be mine!' and doesn't have normal social restraints to suggest to him that this is bad. For a Richard Stallman, this turns him towards dedicated, unyielding determination to maximize social benefit at all costs- at the expense of his day-to-day social contacts, and the patience of those around him. Either way it's more focus than most people ever see, and that's the secret of it... a lot of people seem ready to make all sorts of compromises in their lives, that an autistic person may not be able to make. Which is a weakness and a strength- look at what RMS has been able to do by being singleminded..
Maybe - but ... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a few people commenting on here how autism might actually be an advantage. Well, they clearly haven't come into contact with a seriously autistic child. It's not funny.
The last thing that
Last point: my authority to comment on this comes from:
Working with actuaries. Most of them make the average IT person look like the life and soul of the party. We have real trouble communicating requirements with them.
Having a stepdaughter with Aspergers. It is a frustrating problem for the child, but therapy can help.
Saying all that, often I'd rather be coding device drivers than talking to people.
Re:Article makes sense, you don't... (Score:5, Insightful)
... ... I'll probably get tarred as flamebait for this, but seriously you people need to look beyond your own nose.
Whether you realise it or not, there are talented and dedicated scientists at work figuring out the things that you seem to be already quite certain about. Declaring that you know all the answers isn't going to help anybody figure out what's behind autism. There seems to be a case for more research. Well-meaning attitudes like yours can have the effect of reducing funding, if enough people think they "already know what's going on".
Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a big "if" you've got there.
Obviously genes may have a role in determining what kind of tasks people find interesting, but I'd argue that this is simply due to the enhanced raw ability. In general, people find interesting only the tasks they're good at.
It's the old debate whether the environment or the endogenic factors such as genes dictate how we'll turn out as human beings. In the case of diseases that have a clear genetic origin the negative effects of inbreeding have been well established. I would, however, tend to believe that for very high level functions such as career interests and social skills, the environment will play much more important role than the genes alone.
My point is that I would be very careful in generalising any concepts from physiology (such as inbreeding) to psychology or sociology. Previous attempts such as the frenology do not bode well for this development.
Re:Every inteligent person is disabled in some way (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. Everything has a flip side, you could say that while I'm advantaged by being tall because I can reach the hoop with a modest jump, I am also 'disabled' because I have to bend further which might hurt my back in the long term.
In the geek community I regard this as 'I'm Ender' syndrome. I'M good at school, I'M better than my peers, I'M bullied - therefore I have the power to rule the known universe!!!
Just because your a bit smarter than the rest of your class doesn't mean your in the ranks of picasso and hawking (hawking isn't in the ranks of hawking if we're honest). Being good at something is NOT the same as being great. I can paint - I sell the odd painting - they're better than 90% of the crap sold in low rent galleries. But they are pure turd compared to .
Just because you can write a bit of decent code and you shit your pants when a woman asks you the time doesn't mean your autistic - it means you can write a bit of decent code and you have a social anxiety problem. Most are mild, and can be easily rememdied through counselling - mine was.
Theres comfort in identifying with a disabled group. Everyone claims to be 'a bit dyslexic' - very few genuinely are. They just use it as a cover for the occassional mistake - its not my fault - I was born this way - and theres nothing I can do about it.
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
If you actually read what I was saying, you would understand that I was comparing the genetic/environmental causes of these disorders, rather than comparing them at a medical/sociological level. Which is quite valid, because there are similarities between the causes.
Someone with a REAL disease which they can die from needs help.
Autism is a "REAL" disease, for fucks sake. Just because a disease is psychological and does not appear to be an immediate threat, it does not mean it isn't a problem.
Take your example of depression. A lot of depressed people commit suicide. Other than bringing to an end all the potential of their future life, it also has consequences for family, friends and colleagues. A lot of depressed people refuse treatment. A lot of idiots think depressed people should "pull their socks up", "knock it off", "stop attracting attention", etc. However, depression is a serious, medical disorder which should be treated by appropriate means - counselling, cognitive psychology, seratonin reuptake inhibitors, etc. Leaving them in a depressed state is not fair. Ever been depressed? It's not enjoyable, I can tell you. Ever had a family member who is depressed? Its not enjoyable, I can tell you. Ever had a work colleague with depression? They are not very productive. Ever seen someone for whom Prozac worked, without side affects? The change is profound and beautiful. You see the person come back to life.
Yes, maybe i am pushing my definition of social normality onto other people. But in certain cases it is hard to argue how not doing so is of benefit to that person. Sure, if somebody is a bit *special*, and is happy, fulfilled, and of no harm to themselves and others, then fine. If they could be helped in some way - help them. I don't see what the problem is here.
You're choice of depression was not a good one. It is a largely misunderstood disease. However, there is a deep philosophical point you were trying to make. At what point does someone need help? Where, on the scale from normality to disease, should we intervene? Should we help people who refuse treatment, even when the refusal is a consequence of this disease? Is the reason for treatment limited to the person involved, or should we take a wider stance, and consider the consequences of disease and subsequent treatment on society?
These are difficult questions. You and I cannot answer them. I am not even sure if society can answer them. I guess this is an example where democracy is an imperfect solution, but it's the best solution we've got. Opinions?
Mike Tyson, I'm sure he could use some anger management classes, but for a boxer, his anger is what made him champion of the world.
Um, maybe if he had taken anger management courses, he wouldn't have ended up in prison, and hurt those around him. This is exactly the point I am trying to make.
Re:Good point but (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ask me, anyone willing to give up uniqueness and individuality for comfort needs more help than nearly anyone I can think of. I find it shameful that people are willing to dismiss or hide their difference from those around them for fear of acceptance. What a boring place this would be if everyone felt that way! My opinion is that your flaws, whether they be genetic or otherwise, are what set you apart from the blind hordes of modern culture (read: nameless faces.) How else could you expect to really know yourself?
Besides, the expression of genius is not necessarily more fruitful through communication with other people. In fact, most original expression is often misinterpreted or not even understood at all. Think of the countless musicians, thinkers, poets, et al who we only now have begun to study with enough depth to even hope to grasp their point!
Ultimately, it seems to me that for those who one might label genius, a solitary existence will always outweigh that of the mob, where individuality is feared and discouraged.
Just my 2 pesos, not meant to be a flame or an insult.
--------
[McP]KAAOS
Thats just it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the so called Balanced people, arent very intelligent. Sure they are very balanced, but because of their extreme balance, while they may be normal, how many Balanced people are truely intelligent?
It seems, that its always the people who are the most social, who end up doing the stupidest things.
As far as social skills go, I dont have them, I have technical skills. I could develop social skills but to do so while it would balance me, i'd have to become less technical to do so.
People work like this, either you are naturally good at sometihng, or you arent, usually its best to focus on what you are naturally good at, than to focus on developing skills you arent good at just for the sake of being balanced. As far as social skills go, you dont really need social skills to be successful, take a good look at bill gates, a liar, a backstabber, not really someone anyone could call a friend, no sense of style, he doesnt go to parties, I'm sure he would be considered autistic, but the fact that hes the richest man in the world should tell you something. In order to have what it takes, you need to be the best at what you do, not the most balanced. Have enough social skills to have a conversation of course, but you dont have to try to completely balance yourself unless you are naturally balanced.
I agree with you, people are very specialized, just like good code, is very specialized. When you try to be a jack of all trades, you are always a master of none.
Introduce me to the great scientist or technical person who goes to parties and socializes and no i dont mean some guy from slashdot, slashdotters arent "great" just average.
If only that were so (Score:5, Insightful)
Einstein wasn't antisocial. And John von Neumann, Leonardo da Vinci and Richard Feynman didn't seem to have anything wrong with their lives. Some people are just lucky so-and-sos.
Re:I'm in that boat (Score:2, Insightful)
I truly doubt there is an increase in autism, just an increase in the number of children they are diagnosing as autistic. I never believed or trusted in psychologist in the first place.
Well, when we study people, as Psychology does, we get into very tricky territory.
Basically there's this desire to be scientific. We know that science works because we put a man on the moon. So we want everything to be scientific. Like, if it science, then it's true.
But science can only answer certain questions. What is it's mass? Where is the brain activity? But then there's this whole other half of knowing, which is about meaning and context and interpretation. And this stuff cannot be known objectively. It can only be interpreted, and the trick is to find the best interpretation.
For example, you can objectively measure heart rate. But what is the meaning of the heart rate? Is it because the patient is angry? or excited? or aroused? Which word would the patient use to best describe what they are feeling? Or would you rather just look at their face, to see if they are angry? But now you're still having to interpret. Are they angry? Do they have bad indigestion?
Meaning exists in the mind, and not in the physical brain mass. You can measure chemicals in the brain, but if you want to know what the patient is experiencing, then you have to ask them. And their answer will have to be interpreted. (Well, he says he feels fine, but he didn't sound too sure)
So meethinks that here we have a thing called autism that can't be measured by a machine (unless they find a specific brain region that can be tied to it). And it affects how people interact socially. Now I challenge you to find an objective, performed automatically by machine, test that can measure social inteaction.
No way. The machine would have to not only register language, body posture, etc. but would have to know the meaning of all those things. It would have to practically be sentient, so that it could interpret what it's seeing. At which point it becomes just as subjective as anybody else.
Now until they find a way to measure the brain that is directly tied to autism... we have to interpret what the person is doing (is he just tired or is he antisocial?) which is frought with difficulty... but that doesn't mean that autism "doesn't exist".
So I think the trouble with that test, on the site which you linked, is that it tries to turn a subjective, interpretationally based test, into something which gives you a number for an answer.
Nope. Sorry. No numbers allowed. This is an interpretation, (and possibly a good one, depending on who's performing the evaluation). So the best that the test can be said to "result" in is a, "probably yes", "probably no", or "let's keep an eye on this".
So what we're doing is distinguishing between Objective Truth that can be measured, and Subjective Authenticity which must be interpreted. This is a distinction made by Ken Wilber [shambhala.com], when he looked at many fields of human knowledge and asked himself how it could all possibly fit together. And he noticed that not only were there these two categories, but that our scientifically driven modern world thinks that science is the only kind of truth. Which is half right. The Objective can be studied scientifically. Man walked on the moon! But the subjective aspects, like what's really going on inside a person's experience, THAT can only be found out by talking to the person, interacting with them, interpreting their inner world.
Science won't reveal meaning. "Honey, I love you", "Don't be silly dear. There's no such thing as love in reality. Your brain is merely swishing around some chemicals. When you give me a present I know it's just your brain chemistry acting up. Oh, you want to have sex? But that's just your testosterone. Here's some pills I got from the doctor. The'll re-adjust your chemistry balance."
So we have to see that in addition to the noble truths of science, there's also the noble authenticity of interpretation.
Don't say, "It's not scientific! So it's a pile of crap!" But also, (and this maybe applies to those psychologists), don't pretend that something youve discovered via interpretation is actually something objective and scientific. Just be sure that your interpretation is a good one, and that you check it with other, suitably prepared people who also agree the same meaning. Just like English speakers can interpret English, and be fairly close in their meaning of the words.
Rather, given this phenomenon, "autism", can we study it objectively? Can we study it subjectively? Can we use both what the equiment tells us and what our interpretations tell us? What can we find out about autism, through studying it via both channels?
I blame it all on the marketing! (Score:2, Insightful)
It would be a lot easier to market stuff if we all wanted the same. But we don't! Even if most people seem to think that everybody wants to be just like themselves. Or if they don't want to, they should.
Some people want to be famous, and they try to be pop/film stars. Some people want to be intelligent, and they study science or engineering or coding... Some want to have lots of friends, and they try to be funny and fun to be with. Some want to devote their lives to God and become monks. Some want to be adventurous and take on adrenaline charged activities.
Through training, all these people develop different abilities and personality traits. Of course it will not be common for a football player to have the mental arithmetic of an accountant; and it won't be easy to find a geek who can crack jokes like a professional comedian; or a mathematician who feels as comfortable in front of a camera as your average pop star.
If you feel uneasy and uncomfortable with some aspect of your personality (you're too shy, too clever, too sexy...), it's good to have someone ready to help you deal with it. But I can't see the point of going around saying that if someone has such and such behaviour, they're not normal and need treatment. Bullocks to that!!! If you're reasonably happy with the way you are, and you are able to do the things you like to do, you're fine in my book!
What good are social skills if what you enjoy is being an ermit in your isolated cave? What good is being a top notch C++ guru if what you want is to be a chef?
Decide in which way you want to be different from the crowds, and then don't let anybody tell you you're not normal. Because you're not, but that's OK. And don't fool yourself: you're not better either.
Re:read the article (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, if you read the article, it actually refutes your claims, and provides comprehensive evidence that Autism and Asperger's syndrome are genetically based. It is dangerous and irrational to blame parents for something that has been proven (almost conclusively) to be a genetic disorder.
(Posting AC because I have already moderated).
Eitiology doesn't matter- (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether it is genetic, or environmental ("odd" socialization that is somehow "learned" by children) it really doesn't matter, the outcome is the same.
What concerns me the most is how "disease theory" operates, and how certain diseases (especially mental disorders) become "in vogue." This goes all the way back to Freud (say what you will)- but as a newly emerging middle class had more "idle time" on their hands, and as newly affluent wives developed widely publicized anxiety disorders, the disorder eventually trickled down to the rest of the population.
-not to mention of diagnosis by practioneers is practically contagious.
I work in the field, and have seen wild diagnostic trends- in the 80s we saw an explosion in the diagnosis of depression and BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder). In the early 90s MPD (multiple personalities) was widely diagnosed (way above the prevalence rates shown by any "hard research"- and now MPD is not even in the diagnostic manual). Then we've seen the diagnosis of everything under the sun for our children- (ADD, ADHD, ODD, it goes on and on... BTW- ODD stands for "Oppositional Defiant Disorder"- these are just KIDS were talking about here! All kids can be ODD.).
For many parents it is ultimately "cool" to have a kid with a diagnosis... it lets them off the hook. It lets educators off the hook. How many of you went to primary school in the 70s and sat in a class of 30+ and were taught by a 60+ year old ex-nun with a two-year teaching certificate who had absolutely NO PROBLEM maintaining discipline in the classroom?
Aspergers IS relatively new as a *widespread* diagnosis- it is in essence a "disease of the week." After the inevitable backlash, we'll be having this discussion about some other "disorder" and Aspergers will be an odd footnote of early 21st Century child psychology.
Re:This is not a disease.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's something to be said for the neurologically typical (NT) having labelled the rest of the people "weird" or "geeky" or "autistic". I myself believed that my problems in life had been caused by people hating intelligent people or people who were academically successful. For 44 years, I could comfort myself with the thought that most people were locking out the more intelligent of us because they were acting on some kind of stupid animal instinct to oppress the "other". It was a convenient thing to think, as I didn't have to confront the other things going on, such as my underachieving compared to my potential, such as my not having more than one or two real friends at any time in my life, such as feeling like a stranger and an alien in the place I grew up in.
In the last 5 weeks or so, I've gotten the shock of my life.
My daughter is almost six and is currently going to a Preprimary Impaired program. At the first parent teacher conference, the school psychologist asked me if I had ever heard of Autism. I said, yeah, and mentioned Rainman
That was one hell of a shock, to realize that my kid might never have a normal life, or become a self supporting adult. (I think she'll adjust to her condition, but I can't be sure.) I immediately started researching this online and at the library. Temple Grandin's book "Thinking in Pictures" was an excellent account by an autistic woman of how she percieves the world and how she has managed to adjust to it successfully. Donna William's "Nobody, Nowhere", "Somebody, Somewhere" and "Like Color to the Blind" are harrowing and deep accounts of how a woman gradually came to terms with her autism and the world around her. The best web resource is the "Oops, Wrong Planet Syndrome" webpage at http://www.isn.net/~jypsy, which has hundreds of links, including webpages written by those with autism or Asperger's Syndrome.
A week ago Sunday, I was at that page and having recalled that the school psychologist had mentioned Asperger's as another possibility as to what was going on with my daughter, so I decided to follow some links and read what the doctors and the patients had to say about it. As I read, interest turned to discomfort, and discomfort slowly turned to shock.
Asperger's Syndrome sufferers (Aspies) were often highly intelligent. Well, I'm highly intelligent, but
I had Asperger's Syndrome.
Somehow, I'd managed to cope with it, enough to be able to hold a good job and have a family and stay sane. I'd even managed to mellow a little and get along a little better with people, although my general instinct is to avoid people whenever possible; if I want to talk about things with people, I can just go give myself a silly name like "Pyramid Termite" and go online to webboard like Slashdot. That's sort of relating. I guess.
Right now, I'm working up the nerve to talk to a psychologist. I wanted to, anyway, so I could understand my daughter's autism and how to deal with it, but now I need to understand my own.
So, alright, Slashdotters, it might be genetic, or pollution caused, or have something to do with the MMR vaccine. Hell, I don't know. I have some special abilities, but there are people who also have them who aren't on the autistic spectrum. If I'm the future of humanity or a member of the Master Race, let me tell you, I don't feel like it. I feel sad and scared and proud of myself and regretful that no one, least of all me, understood what I was going through until now. I can't tell you what it's like to be a high functioning autistic person because I don't know that for myself yet. It's going to take some time, and meanwhile, I've got to keep working at my job and guide my daughter through her problems.
It's said that 1/3 to 1/2 of Aspies go undiagnosed. If there's a problem in your life with alienation, never having any friends, relating poorly to people, etc., take a good look. Like me, you could have Apserger's or autism and not even know it.
Re:This is not a disease.. (Score:4, Insightful)
All the things that nearly everyone considers the most important things in life, such as friendship, love, social acceptance, relationships are made incredibly difficult. This is not just the prejudice of society, the attempts at social interaction by people with low emotional intelligence really are incredibly annoying, and often downright hurtful.
Autism related disorders do not make someone more intelligent or more apt at technical skills. It is just that certain technical- or scientific fields are the only way in which some of them can find a place in society. The ones that don't have these skills, often end up as the smelly homeless people you step over in the street.
Neither is autism a prerequisition for success in a technical profession. Believe it or not, most highly intelligent people are also highly social. Looking at students in university, the most successful ones are usually the highly social ones, and *not* the complete and utter spods.
Limited social intelligence and fine motor control can make life a living hell, especially for kids. It is a disability that has a very severe impact on the quality of life. To suggest it is merely a 'perception problem' of society is no different from claiming deafness isn't a disability, but our cultures reliance on sound is.
Re:Psychology is a very immature science (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:read the article (Score:2, Insightful)
I have Aspergers, and my family was a stereotypical Nuclear family. My mum stayed home and looked after us kids, and definitely taught us social skills. But the fact is that I have Asperger's, and always have.
My Mum's insistence on teaching me social skills despite my problems (which weren't diagnosed until recently) has helped me cope with the syndrome, but the fact is that I still suffer from the syndrome's problems: I have to consciously force myself to stop rocking backwards and forwards, I have to concentrate *very* hard to pick up things such as sarcasm, I have problems picking up non-verbal cues, I detest any disruption to routines, I have problems making eye-contact with people... the list of problems that I face is long, and I'm sure that these are not due in any way to the way my parents raised me, and in fact I would be quite offended if somebody stated that.
(Posting AC because I have already moderated).
Re:Thats just it! (Score:1, Insightful)
As an undergraduate at MIT, there are many people who have no social skills, but there are also many who are very personable and very good at a large number of things: music, sports, theatre, etc.
As a successful engineer and MIT EE/CS student, I think it is not unreasonable for me to think that I am "intelligent," but as an All-American athlete and enthusiast in many other things than CS, I also like to think of myself as "balanced." I have a beautiful wife and I enjoy hanging out with my friends. "Balance" is what you make it.
Think:
Re:It's actually a contributing factor, I think. (Score:3, Insightful)
The brain-- arguably the *only* place emotions and personality exists-- is itself made up of cells which are only interesting in that they constantly carry out a series of various chemical reactions.
The brain is not dropped in whole by some external force, complete with skills and knowledge. In fact, it is grown according the "blueprints" contained in the DNA of the organism. The brain does not stop growing for several years after birth, which obviously allows it emergent interactions with the world to also have an effect on its growth-- especially at the chemical level certain balances of various compounds would seem to be critical in certain developments.
Rather than being suspicious of any concept which generalizes from physiology to psychology, we should be suspicious of any psychology or sociology which does not take physiological matters into account. (And frankly, at this point sociology can do little more than describe the results of group behaviors-- maybe when psychiatry can more accurately determine how one individual achieves a state, then it can start to offer theorems as to how this works when there is a group-- I posit the two may even be intertwined and need simultaneous explanations. Or maybe I've been reading too much Asimov lately).
However, we can obviously discount the majority of something like frenology because lumps on the outside of the head do not seem remotely causal to brain development, nor is likely they result specifically from distinct brain developments.
So finally we are still left with the problem... can genetics determine careers? Well not exactly. But in a society such as that of the US, careers are highly focused activities, and access to many careers is limited through various vetting procedures (schools, unions, etc). Therefore only people with specific makeups are likely to enter those careers-- many of which *do* require a degree of specialization wherein specific aptitudes are quite indicative of future success.
If a person is *extremely* good at math, then as long as they are socially able and financially have access to tools like a college education, it seems likely that along the way they will find a career which focuses that skill (on the assumption that they probably also *like* math enough to want to do it more than occasionally)-- hence they may well end up an actuarialist, or a financial analyst, or a cryptographer, or any other discipline closely related to raw math.
This assumption can be extrapolated to many disciplines. And I think most of these underlying talents are genetically determined. So the suggestion to breed outside one's profession is not quite wide enough, perhaps. If you are heavily weighted to an "autistic" career type, you must choose another career type altogether-- unfortunately I'd say autistics are the least likely to do this.
The evidence presented in the article seems to bear this out. Even if *all* of the genes that promote autism are recessive or the environmental factors that cause a leaning that way are unlikely, those genes and/or environmental conditions seem to be prominent in programming communities.
This leads to a higher likelihood of getting double recessives in the phenotype *or* an increased likelihood that any environmental factors will not be countered by environmental variations in the homes where these children live. The fact that the families described are often double-earners with children spending plenty of time outside the home indicates to me that the determination is more genetic than environmental.
Of course, I can also think of a few counter-arguments, ranging from "there is no problem, this is simply a newfound awareness" to "so suddenly it's concentrated in SiliValley-- is it decreasing elsewhere?" to "even if the kids are out of the home a lot, the parental environment, especially prenatal, immediately post-natal, and in terms of a majority of time spent in emotionally connective activity, is still a *huge* factor-- so we need to examine the environments as well as the genetics for commonalities in families where the syndrome occurs".
I'm somewhat skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)
I've no doubt that some significant percentage of the new cases in California are legitimate. I do wonder, though, if a significant percentage of the remainder, though, are not autistic but are rather by-products of society's modern trend of blaming a child's behavioral or developmental problems on a psychological/mental disorder and doping him/her up on medication as a means of covering up our failures at being and unwillingness to be responsible parents.
Re:This is not a disease.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is not a disease.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is important is your daughter. She's going to have a heck of a time, and she's going to need all the understanding, patience, and love that you can muster. Take all that knowledge and experience that you have from your life, all those memories of how you felt, and what you liked, and what made you feel better, and channel it into being that best father for your her. And making her life as rich and worthwhile as possible, regardless of what her prognosis ends up as.
You can look back at your past and analyse yourself and feel pity, or sadness or whatever. Or you can take this disease that you had/have, and turn it into a heroic trait. Use that understanding and apply it to your daughter, and become a hero for her. Do that and you won't have to worry about the ways that your physiology isn't normal, becuase you will have lept beyond the norm in the one area in which you are handicapped - interacting with another person.
Re:It's just Darwinian adaptation! (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't imagine a full geek culture succeeding. Maybe Microsoft is the biggest geek culture ever created. But could you really make a geek city, not just a work campus? I think such a city would collapse under its own weight. What does Silicon Valley need in non-geek people just to keep the peace and froth the latte?
I think that you could build a civilization without geeks, but you can build a better one with them. Maybe geeks will evolve their own culture beyond Slashdot and Hot Grits, but the culture will be in the context of a bigger, non-geek culture. I don't think that you could separate the two types any more than you can seperate the two genders.
Re:This is not a disease.. (Score:3, Insightful)
As a person who fits this description to a T (how ironic), I'm wondering why you're so panicked? Your daughter's situation notwithstanding, you seem to have done fine so far in life so why the "Oh my God! I'm a broken person!" feelings? The 'symptoms' also appear to encompass most of the intelligent introverted personality types (INTJ, INTP, etc.). I'm rather amused that I might have Aspergers.
I am (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:this is evolution of mankind (Score:3, Insightful)
What else would autism mean? However, I do have friends, just not many, carefully chosen, and carefully cultivated (Asperger's does mean you can indeed be a selfish fuck, if you aren't careful). What I was talking about was forced interaction, the repeated declining of invitations to social events, and trying to find a polite way to decline without just coming out and saying "We have nothing in common, and I have no interest in being your friend or spending any more time with you than I have to."
In case you missed it though, I'll make my point clearer. Autism in its various forms is a blessing to those who have it. Severe Aspergers or full blown autism is a curse on the family and carers, but that's a different issue. Saying that you want to cure a child of autism is a selfish (but very understandable) act. Saying that you want to do it for their benefit is a cosy lie. I understand why monkey parents want to make their child behave normally, but some of my most traumatic childhood memories are of being forced to interact socially with the monkey tribe. I can forgive, but I can never forget, and my children will be enabled and perhaps encouraged but never, ever forced to join the herd.
Mild autism is a wonderful state to be in. I can find words to describe what I imagine that you must be feeling when you type. Anger, resentment, an urge to dominate another individual. However, it doesn't affect me. I don't feel any urge to make a personal attack back, or to hurt you. In the nicest possible way, you're beneath my contempt. If you can't bother me (and you can't), I have no real interest in you, other than as a foil to help explain what mild Asperger's is like.
My view is that the point of progress is to make people happier. Autism makes for happy people. The problem is resourcing and providing for that. Classic SF stories where humankind has reached the stage where planets are inhabited by a few individuals surrounded by silence and a plethora of technology - that's the autists dream. The alternative, where everyone is forcibly normalised and socialised, is a nightmare that doesn't bear thinking about.
Re:this is evolution of mankind (Score:2, Insightful)
I have aspergers, which is apparantly a mental disability. I consider this rather funny as most of the people telling me my mind doesnt work properly have 50 fewer IQ points than me (Im aware IQ isnt the be all and end all of intelligence, but I'm sure that I am smarter than these people in most testable ways).
When I was young, I believed this lie however. I also believed the people who were telling me that I was stupid, socially inept, ugly etc. But as I grew up I realised that this was just the way Normal humans are - vindictively putting others down in a fruitless quest to make themselves feel better or look more desirable to the opposite sex.
I tried for a long time to fit in with normal humans, but I never could. Then I realised that I shoulnd't try to copy the behaviour of these people. I am now a lot happier being myself, being different, and I no longer allow myself to be hurt by the daily attacks I receive from normals.
However I cannot be as forgiving as you are towards them. Every time I meet new people I give them a chance, but every time they turn out to be carbon copies of all the mindless apes that I've met before. One of the reasons I do not have many friends is that most people I meet I consider disposable. Why bother making an effort with someone when you can walk into a pub and meet someone exactly the same as them and start afresh?
To be blunt, normal people are vindictive, intollerant of even the slightest deviation from the norm, stupid and unimaginative. I refuse to accept that the better aspecets of modern society were created by these short-sighted, selfish individuals. Instead I suspect that civilisation has been guided by people like us, who spent their lives desperatley trying to drag the sluggish minds of the general populace to a higher level. And now it seems society has been shaped such that aspergers syndrome is more common. Normal people consider this a bad thing of course, but then again most animals flee from what they dont understand.
Re:New species on the rise: (Score:1, Insightful)
Speak for yourself, girlie-man
I know I'm not alone, too -- there is a nontrivial contingent of hard-core computer geeks with an affinity for physical fitness. One of the best programmers I know practices Iaido (which, if you knew him, and knew of the art, wouldn't surprise you in the least -- it's a repetitive perfectionist's style which rewards obsession on minutae).
-- Guges --
Ritalin &ADD & ADHD (Score:1, Insightful)
Actual ADD comes from a shortage of a particular neurotransmitter related to attention. *any* stimulant will cause production of this neurotransmitter, both in the normal and ADD brain. For those with ADD, ritalin is much "cleaner" than many of the alternatives, but it is a strong central nervous stimulant. (And the "same as amphetamine" is as much nonsense as "H20 and H2SO4 are the same.)
As for the suggestion that Ritalin doesn't help, and that disorientation comes from ritalin withdrawl--the evidence is stacked against you. Ritalin has the same effect for adults who start taking it at 30, 40, or 50 (speaking from experience, which is why this is anonymous).
Social adaptation helps. I did a lot of that, and don't suffer from the "social" symptoms. I get along quite well socially, thank you. My behavior is quite appropriate (in some cases, a learned behavior). The sad fact of the matter is that I don't have an attention span--a chipmonk can stay on task longer than I can without medication.
Adrenalin will do it as wel--with the side effect (like many stimulants) of a pounding heart. This cansometimes get a person through stressful situations, such as tests, but can't be relied on.
Yes, ADD and ADDHD are probably grossly overdiagnosed, but the anti-ritalin kooks are just plain that (and no, it's not addictive--a primary problem is forgetting to take it).
Finally, i've been distracted and done 3 or 4 other things, just while trying to write this.
What the hell makes you so special? (Score:1, Insightful)
But you clearly don't know diddly about biodiversity, or ethics, or common sense, or anything else. Just because you're better educated than most, does that make you a better person? Does it make you kinder, more impartial, more compassionate, stronger, healthier, less prone to infections or jumping to conclusions?
Does it give your genes (dare I suggest, your probably white middle-class male genes) sufficient variability to make up for the lack of diversity that will occur if you stop all the stupid (your word, chucky, not mine) people from breeding?
Doesn't that sound like the worst kind of fascism to you? Supposed racial or genetic superiority as yet another excuse?
Honestly, you may be smart in some ways, but you're sure dumb in so many others...
You know what's really sad? (Score:1, Insightful)
I really hope some of you grow up and stop believing all the bullshit you're being fed. Remember, you are not a wonderful and unique snowflake. As for the rest, you can all die slowly and miserably for all I care. Nobody will notice the difference anyway.
To the editors: salut and felicitations.