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

In search of a truce in the autism wars

spectrumnews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 169 posts

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#61

Post by fwip »

komali2 wrote: post #40
keenmaster wrote: post #17

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 evoluti…

Evolutionary pressures aren't as simple as "if it lowers your chance of reproducing it's bad." You can read "The Selfish Gene" for more info.

Consider a gene that promotes compassion, selflessness and sharing. While it may lower your individual fitness, groups with some individuals with this gene may fare better as a whole.

Same as autism. For example, say autistic people see connections that other people don't. Having a low rate of "different thinkers" is positive for the group as a whole, even if the individuals may be disadvantaged in other ways.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#62

Post by dooglius »

ausbah wrote: post #13
DiseasedBadger wrote: post #2

There is no genuine debate to be had. No one who has the ability to not be autistic, would choose to be. This is yet another example of how our toxic modern culture turns everything into an "identity". Some people are less healthy than others. That's potentially sad, potentially not a big deal. Neither way is there any excuse for this faketroversy.

>No one who has the ability to not be autistic, would choose to be. How do you know that? You aren't an autistic person, what gives you the right to suddenly speak for autistic people? >This is yet another example of how our toxic modern culture turns everything into an "identity". Google literally defines identity as "the fact of being who or what a person or thing is". Ergo a person with autism can have autism as a…

Google's definition of "identity" definitely does not capture the word as I understand it, and as I believe the GP was using it.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#63

Post by chungleong »

nicoburns wrote: post #3
DiseasedBadger wrote: post #2

There is no genuine debate to be had. No one who has the ability to not be autistic, would choose to be. This is yet another example of how our toxic modern culture turns everything into an "identity". Some people are less healthy than others. That's potentially sad, potentially not a big deal. Neither way is there any excuse for this faketroversy.

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.

There aren't many software companies that would let a programmer just code these day. Daily stand-ups must be torture for those with autistic traits.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#64

Post by dooglius »

geofft wrote: post #49
PeterisP wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would you say that I'm not in a state of health because I'm allergic to nuts? Yes, definitely - wouldn't you? It's a flawed behavior of the body that causes disadvantages, for some people it's life threatening, so it's definitely a health issue; If that would be easily and permanently curable without side effects, then it would and should be cured en masse as a common healthcare procedure.

I agree with that description, but is the conclusion that I'm permanently unhealthy? And is that a useful definition—isn't everyone permanently unhealthy in one way or another?

Health is neither boolean nor one-dimensional, but we can still say an allergy to nuts is less healthy than not. The same can be said for autism.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#65

Post by keenmaster »

dooglius wrote: post #59
komali2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 evoluti…

Well, I think one issue is that evolution acts on base-pair mutations and not traits. So (to wildly make a possibility up) suppose that mutations X, Y, and Z are each individually beneficial, but having all of them at once gives you autism. Then the population probably converges on a distribution that has some nonzero probability of X, Y, and Z.

That’s another 100% plausible evolutionary explanation. Autism is caused by genes that correlate with intelligence, which is positive for evolutionary fitness. If you get a certain mixture of those genes, you get autism. That won’t stop the genes from propagating though.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#66

Post by microtherion »

red75prime wrote: post #60
microtherion wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> distinguishing between fine gradations of autism I'm not sure how useful that would be. It's hard enough to agree on a diagnosis of autism at all. Agreeing on finer gradations would be all but impossible. And I'm concerned that "gradations" would lead people to think of autism as a 1D scale, when, as I'm sure you'd agree, it is anything but! Each individual experiences autism related challenges (stimming, difficult…

If you want 1D, project that vector onto social functioning axis.

That's not 1D either. What is "social functioning"? Making eye contact while speaking? Refraining from stimming? Respecting social boundaries? Figuring out when it's time to move on from discussing the merits of various Yu-Gi-Oh! cards? Knowing how to take public transportation?

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#67

Post by ausbah »

DiseasedBadger wrote: post #20
ausbah wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No one who has the ability to not be autistic, would choose to be. How do you know that? You aren't an autistic person, what gives you the right to suddenly speak for autistic people? >This is yet another example of how our toxic modern culture turns everything into an "identity". Google literally defines identity as "the fact of being who or what a person or thing is". Ergo a person with autism can have autism as a…

You're perspective is flawed. You can't assume everyone is equally able to speak for themselves. One might not speak ill of a tyrant one has no prospects of escaping.

>You can't assume everyone is equally able to speak for themselves.

Okay some people can't speak for themselves, what gives you in particular any authority to speak for those who can't? Even then, that doesn't deal with the matter of those who can speak for themselves.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#68

Post by Fnoord »

Jesus_Jones wrote: post #45
duncan-donuts wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m going to guess gossip to that degree isn’t just an American thing. I’m 100% with you, though. My oldest daughter is autistic. She’s an amazing little kiddo, and I’m super proud of her. Her therapy has really helped her, but I’m worried for her. Society is going to black ball her and it’s fucking stupid. The parents are the worst too. My daughter has been friends with a handful of kids since she was 2, and, after…

so what should they do? explain how they should think about inviting your kid to events that they might worry would be too much? It's an awkward conversation for them to have too. What is the consideration? is this different for every autistic kid?

No 2 autistic people are the same. For example, my girlfriend is sensitive to certain sounds. Our daughter appears to have the same issue, but we don't know for sure yet. I learned to get less sensitive to it over the years.

As for your question: invite the kid and take their needs into account? Is it really that hard to grasp? I don't get it. Some kids have an allergy. Some kids have lice. Some kids have tamper tantrums. Some kids have farts. Some kids have skin infections. Some kids pee in their pants. Some kids have ADHD. Some kids have.. well I guess you get the point by now.

Try out the children playing at your (or their) premises, see if they get along with each other without too much hassle. Make clear rules. Explain things in a positive way. If it doesn't work out, be honest about it to the parents. Don't make it as if "you want to do your kid a favor". You're doing it for selfish reasons because you cannot handle the kid. That's fine (though not ideal), but do say that. Cause that's actually what you're really saying in a kind of nice package which is as fake as you can make it.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#69

Post by british_india »

High functioning autistic people have the ability to cope with extremely complicated systems.

Thus, as the people with Aspergers take over, we will find some nice safe places for the Neurotypicals to live. We will find games for you to play and other simple things to take care of you. But do not be confused: there will come a day when we control everything.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#70

Post by PeterisP »

geofft wrote: post #49
PeterisP wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would you say that I'm not in a state of health because I'm allergic to nuts? Yes, definitely - wouldn't you? It's a flawed behavior of the body that causes disadvantages, for some people it's life threatening, so it's definitely a health issue; If that would be easily and permanently curable without side effects, then it would and should be cured en masse as a common healthcare procedure.

I agree with that description, but is the conclusion that I'm permanently unhealthy? And is that a useful definition—isn't everyone permanently unhealthy in one way or another?

While almost no one has perfect health, a key factor there is the ability to correct the issues and the cost/benefit of doing so.

It's not worth mourning about a nut allergy because (as far as I understand) there's not much that we can do about it, so one might as well as just accept it as the way things are. However, if it could be easily and permanently curable without side effects, then not doing so would be an intentional choice to remain permanently unhealthy.

However, for the original discussion about autism, it may be relevant to consider the analogies (and differences) to the hotly debated issue regarding cochlear implants for deaf children. Both sides have a lot to say and I'm probably mangling their opinions, but in essence there's a situation where certain types of deafness can be "fixed" (albeit imperfectly) by cochlear implants; but many in the Deaf community don't want to be "fixed" to become more like hearing people; and in order for hearing/speech centers to develop properly the procedure needs to be done in childhood as early as possible, before they can decide for themselves. So there's a rather emotional debate on whether deaf kids should "be fixed" if they parents prefer that they would not (because e.g. they want their kids to be a full part of the Deaf community, using ASL instead of spoken English as their native language) - and if that raises a lot of questions regarding what should be considered states of permanent unhealth, then the mental issues would be even more contestable and contested.

Post reply on HN