Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial

news.rpi.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial

#101

Post by [deleted] »

jacquesm wrote: post #69
vehementi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? A widely recognized reference manual is blanket discredited because it made a mistake in the past (1952-1974, not DSM-3)?

That makes it a book in which some statements are social reflections rather than statements rooted in good science, which makes other such statements somewhat suspect. It doesn't mean you should reject the whole thing out of hand but it might be a good idea to try to figure out how much of it is todays bias rather than good science in cases where that is warranted.

[deleted]

Re: First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial

#102

Post by taejo »

nicolethenerd wrote: post #79
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. One of the biggest problems in autism advocacy is high-functioning people (like me) and (the guardians of) low-functioning people constantly talking past each other. Some people are perfectly happy as they are and don't want to be changed, some people are desperately unhappy and could really benefit from treatment or even a "cure". The spectrum is far too broad for a single approach to work. > I've had pe…

I think the trend these days is to use People-first language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language (that is, saying "person with autism" - because it puts the person first)

> People-first language ... is a type of linguistic prescription to avoid marginalization or dehumanization ... when discussing people with a health issue or disability.

The argument for "autistic person" or even "autist" is that it's not a health issue or disability.

Re: First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial

#103

Post by red75prime »

krageon wrote: post #97
red75prime wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people with autism don't have enough communication skills to do that.

You are correct because your statement doesn't quantify it in any meaningful way, which is the least useful kind of correct. For example, I can also say that "many people with autism do have enough communication skills to do that". We both understand how a lot of readers will interpret these two statements if made in isolation, even though that is wrong. They can both be true at the same time (and in this case I'd sa…

You can learn more about certain people with autism by talking to people who care for them than by talking to them, especially online. That's all there is to my statement.

Re: First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial

#104

Post by antonvs »

vorotato wrote: post #41
jmcgough wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful about that kind of wording. I and friends who're on the spectrum don't consider it a "mental disorder". It's simply a physiological difference, one that theoretically can be tested for.

If it's not affecting you in a negative way then it's not a disorder. If it is then it can be. If it doesn't have serious negative impacts then you're just non-neurotypical which is fine. People have the same opinions around ADHD but when you need accommodation or treatment it's worth classifying it as something that needs some level of accommodation or treatment.

"Normal" people get all sorts of accommodations and treatments - the world is set up to support their needs. People with different needs, who need different accommodations are then labeled as having a "disorder". It's a biased system which doesn't allow for normal variations between types of people.

Re: First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial

#105

Post by antonvs »

gowld wrote: post #32
cosmojg wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that reasoning apply to any disorder? Medically, a disorder is simply "a disruption of normal physical or mental functions." So, having any disorder makes one abnormal, unique, special, and possibly above average or below average, but certainly not average. "Disorder" and "special physiological difference" are synonyms.

Disorder is deviation from a declared healthy norm. "Difference" is more symmetric. A disorder is a condition that causes suffering.

But that suffering may be the result of attempting to function in a system set up for a different type of person. "Disorder" is, in many cases, a biased way to look at it.

Re: First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial

#106

Post by antonvs »

throwawaymath wrote: post #56
gowld wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"retarded" and "dumb" are also clinical terms. They only stopped being clinical terms because people attached connotations. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill

Alright, if you'd like me to excessively specify my point: "retarded" and "dumb" are adjectives not used in the DSM 5, which means they are not modern clinical terms. They have also been abolished completely. "Disorder" is still in common use, not only for autism but across the DSM as a common term meaning "atypical and diagnosable." So yes, "disorder" is an appropriate term at the moment. Whether it will continue to…

> "Disorder" is still in common use, not only for autism but across the DSM as a common term meaning "atypical and diagnosable." So yes, "disorder" is an appropriate term at the moment.

In a clinical context, yes. But there are probably close to zero clinicians in this thread.

One problem with the term "disorder" here is that quite often, it's applied to someone who has difficulty thriving under the many accommodations given to neurotypical people. If the autism spectrum was the norm, neurotypicals would have a similar disorder.

> Whether it will continue to be in the future is irrelevant for present conversation.

Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible for society to lead clinicians on issues like this, which is what seems to have happened with words like "society" and "dumb".

Re: First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial

#107

Post by hhh »

jvln wrote: post #99
krageon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A resting heart rate of 100 bpm? That is definitely not normal. Is that also anxiety related?

it is definitely not resting. It must be while walking. 138 is around the 5 flour by using stairs.

This was at my peak anxiety point after having hallucinations the night before, taken by a nurse before I was to see everyone my psychiatrist. Resting normally and not anxious or having a panic attack I rest around 70-85.

Re: First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial

#108

Post by samatman »

Jarwain wrote: post #93
samatman wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong twice I'm afraid. First: a graph with two infinite dimensions doesn't have a top right point, it has a top right extent. Second: when graphing, you don't get to pick what the normal is. That's a property of the graph. It is not the (impossible) property you've described.

I feel like two different definitions of 'normal' are at odds here. 'Normal' in the context of a graph, and 'normal' to mean typical or usual

The semantics are chosen to be as close to identical as is feasible given data.

Re: First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial

#109

Post by PhasmaFelis »

taejo wrote: post #102
nicolethenerd wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the trend these days is to use People-first language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language (that is, saying "person with autism" - because it puts the person first)

> People-first language ... is a type of linguistic prescription to avoid marginalization or dehumanization ... when discussing people with a health issue or disability. The argument for "autistic person" or even "autist" is that it's not a health issue or disability.

That's the error I was addressing in my earlier post. For me, autism is not a disability. For someone like BadCookie's son, it definitely is. I personally don't care either way about "person with autism" vs. "autistic person", but it's dangerous to assume that autism is never a disability because high-functioning people exist.

Re: First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial

#110

Post by jklinger410 »

fwip wrote: post #68
jklinger410 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful about that kind of wording. Those of us with loved ones who have severe autism consider it a "mental disorder" and not simply a psychological difference. We'd really love for all of the "neurodivergent" people to have their own diagnosis.

Thanks, but I care more about what a person with autism says than somebody who simply knows one.

I'll try to get my little brother to sign up to a hacker news account. If we get that far without me doing it for him, we'll see if you can make sense of his response.

He doesn't have a great ability to write because he's severely autistic. You know, the disorder kind that makes it difficult to learn to read and write?

Post reply on HN