Live data from Hacker News

In search of a truce in the autism wars

spectrumnews.org

31–40 of 169 posts

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#31

Theres loads of research linking autism with metabolic dysfunction. It is not a state of health.

Hm, https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/clinical-research-metaboli... argues otherwise.

Also, would you say that I'm not in a state of health because I'm allergic to nuts?

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#32
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem is that the lack of ability to express empathy oftentimes come across as cruelty. Not always, but quite often.

Well, there are quite a few people who lack empathy to such an extreme extent as to be quite cruel to others. We all want to avoid these people, so we expect those we interact with to express strong empathy-signals, and distrust them if they won't. It's absolutely normal for autists to be inconvenienced by this, since - their empathy-ceilings being lower, as a rule - they have to pay a higher personal cost than most…

I meant that people on the spectrum can come across as cruel or abusive or hurt others without intention to and regardless of what they feel inside. That is not about signals only. I mean the impact on others is there. Unintentional, but real.

Then it leads to retaliation which in misunderstood and whole thing may lead to escalations and at worst bullying. That is more then inconvenience.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#33
post #29
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> plenty of autistic people are happy to be the way they are and would not want to change. How can you objectively claim to prefer autism over non-autism if you've never experienced the latter? It's like me being completely content with my mechanical Ford Mustang and refusing to switch to a computerized car on the grounds that I'm happy with my Mustang and it's impossible for me to imagine what driving a computerized…

How can you objectively claim to prefer non-autism over autism?

I can't; the only way to have objective preference is by experiencing both for the same period of time before choosing

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#34

We’re probably all better off because some people have autism. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an evolutionary explanation for its prevalence. However, there are so many consequences to being “abnormal” that most neurotypicals would refuse to be reincarnated as autistic if given the choice. If you have autism, the traits conferred by the condition have become part of your identity. You very well may not see it as…

Is America unusual in this regard?

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#35

There's an observation I made a while ago: pretty much all people that I heard stating that they are "on the spectrum" were americans. Why is that? I never checked but I would be surprised if the prevalence is higher than in other western countries. So what is it? Is it better diagnosed or just wrong (wrong diagnosis, self-diagnosis, pidgeonholing bc it's cool to be non-average,...), or maybe there is an issue that p…

Every human is "on the spectrum". The guidelines are extremely flimsy and if you've ever been stressed in a social situation you're essentially on the spectrum. In software engineering I hear it almost as a joking term of endearment.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#36
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there are quite a few people who lack empathy to such an extreme extent as to be quite cruel to others. We all want to avoid these people, so we expect those we interact with to express strong empathy-signals, and distrust them if they won't. It's absolutely normal for autists to be inconvenienced by this, since - their empathy-ceilings being lower, as a rule - they have to pay a higher personal cost than most…

I meant that people on the spectrum can come across as cruel or abusive or hurt others without intention to and regardless of what they feel inside. That is not about signals only. I mean the impact on others is there. Unintentional, but real. Then it leads to retaliation which in misunderstood and whole thing may lead to escalations and at worst bullying. That is more then inconvenience.

Retaliation is a strategic last resort that is intended to deter cruel people from hurting us, when appeals to empathy are expected to be ineffective. If someone hurts you accidentally, and you can tell (because he can reliably express empathy), you won't retaliate; you'll ask for an apology. If someone hurts you out of cruelty, expecting an apology is actually counterproductive; you'll either get the authorities involved, or if you're in an especially shitty situation where no authority will back you with force, retaliate swiftly and perhaps at disproportionate cost to yourself, so that whoever hurt you understands that it was a bad idea - and so that, ex-ante, even the cruel aren't tempted to hurt you in the first place.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#37
post #34

We’re probably all better off because some people have autism. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an evolutionary explanation for its prevalence. However, there are so many consequences to being “abnormal” that most neurotypicals would refuse to be reincarnated as autistic if given the choice. If you have autism, the traits conferred by the condition have become part of your identity. You very well may not see it as…

Is America unusual in this regard?

No, and ironically the poster of that comment is doing the exact same thing, judging people for judging people.

Judging is a natural, normal, unavoidable thing we all do.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#38

We’re probably all better off because some people have autism. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an evolutionary explanation for its prevalence. However, there are so many consequences to being “abnormal” that most neurotypicals would refuse to be reincarnated as autistic if given the choice. If you have autism, the traits conferred by the condition have become part of your identity. You very well may not see it as…

>> Do we have nothing better to do than judge others?

That's kind of what you're doing right now. We use judgement all the time but the definition of acceptable criteria is not universal nor static. You can work to change the narrative but you can't fix the game.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends a lot on the severity of the condition... I have autistic traits, and although they do cause me some problems, they also give me advantages (an excellent career in software development due to unusually good logical thinking for example). I'm not convinced that I would choose to be otherwise.

I think that severely autistic people have an emotional life as real as anyone else, probably more empathy than they are able to express, but neurotypicals have a hard time having empathy for them. Thus i think the puppet is insulting to severe autists as well as less severe autists. It is typical neurological thinking to see somebody different as less than human.

> It is typical neurological thinking to see somebody different as less than human.

The puppet was used because it would be almost impossible for a child of the right age to act the part.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#40

We’re probably all better off because some people have autism. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an evolutionary explanation for its prevalence. However, there are so many consequences to being “abnormal” that most neurotypicals would refuse to be reincarnated as autistic if given the choice. If you have autism, the traits conferred by the condition have become part of your identity. You very well may not see it as…

>evolutionary explanation

Hmm... I hope someone more knowledgeable than me in biology jumps in to lend their thought, but I'm extremely skeptical of takes like this - another one I see a lot online is that somehow homosexuality has "evolutionary explanations." It doesn't jive with my understanding of how evolution works.

Statements like that seem to imply there is some sort of intelligent force or plan behind evolution, when instead it is "directed" by noise, not "reacting to" noise.

As far as I know there's no way for evolution to "sprinkled a bit of autism" across a population for an increased chance of population survival - I don't see how such a mechanism could exist.

That's not to say that autism doesn't somehow improve society or populations, maybe it does, I don't know. But I don't think we can point to evolution as the mechanism.

Post reply on HN