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

Hannah Gadsby on her autism diagnosis

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: Hannah Gadsby on her autism diagnosis

#81

Post by Idiotfucker »

BurningFrog wrote: post #38
elihu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we get a better understanding of what autism actually is, I'd expect we'd also establish more specific and accurate terms for it. I don't see any reason why it would just go away as a concept, though. It seems like it's pretty well established at this point that there is a collection of characteristics that some people have that fit the current understanding of what is meant by "autism". I'm not an expert in the a…

I expect it will be understood to be several separate things, which express themselves in vaguely similar ways, but are quite different both in origin and treatment.

(Adding to this) Similar to how depression, anxiety, PTSD, and a few other manifest similarly, but are labeled, diagnosed and treated as separate issues.

Re: Hannah Gadsby on her autism diagnosis

#82

Post by alecst »

human_person wrote: post #76
alecst wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would be interested in knowing why this was downvoted —- is this wrong?

Where did you read about autism? What was the title of the book?

This one: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/An-Epidemic-of-Absenc...

An Epidemic of Absence, by Moises Velasquez Manoff.

Re: Hannah Gadsby on her autism diagnosis

#83

Post by Idiotfucker »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #21
slibhb wrote: post #5

Autism has become a catch-all for "people who are weird". "Neurotypical" is the vaguely condescending opposite. Notice the sneer when she refers to "neurotypical 'experts'". The basic idea is that people who are weird are a subjugated minority, oppressed by people with boring, normal brains. I don't doubt that Hannah Gadsby is weird but I think life is hard for everyone, including normal people. I think the struggles…

> I don't doubt that Hannah Gadsby is weird but I think life is hard for everyone, including normal people. I think the struggles she enumerates are common: most of us have crises of identity or meaning, many of us feel intense insecurity, cut off and isolated from others. This isn't to minimize her suffering, it's to say that suffering is normal. "Everyone feels those things you describe" was how coworkers and super…

> Maybe they only mention them with great reluctance is because you're not a safe person to mention them around.

Based on OP's other comments, I wouldn't find this hard to believe considering their complete dismissal and misunderstanding (or perhaps intentional misinterpretation) of people's comments that antagonize open questions and considerations.

Re: Hannah Gadsby on her autism diagnosis

#84

Post by Tao331 »

twoneurons wrote: post #9
fsckboy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're fairly judgmental, you think there's a way people should be, and other ways people should not be. this is exactly the type of attitude that exacerbates the alienation autistics already feel.

Autism is not an emotional cycle, it's not a circumstantial state it's a disorder determined by genetics. Either you got the genes, or you don't. Pretty binary.

No post body was provided.

Re: Hannah Gadsby on her autism diagnosis

#85

Post by coolso »

BurningFrog wrote: post #53
CPLX wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found these fundamentally unwatchable, but I guess there’s an audience for it.

Nanette is more an angry speech by a clever and witty person than the "comedy special" it's made out to be.

Well, she’s certainly angry at least.

Re: Hannah Gadsby on her autism diagnosis

#86

Post by Tao331 »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #46
twayt wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People would rather get a diagnosis to belong to a community than be an outcast who struggles to fit in and have their gifts recognized.

Disclaimer: am on spectrum, formal diagnosis at 8yo > have their gifts recognized. Please explain how _extreme difficulty in socializing_ is a "gift".

They didn't say it was. They said it's a barrier to having ones gifts recognized. Or at least that's my interpretation.

Re: Hannah Gadsby on her autism diagnosis

#87

Post by PragmaticPulp »

celdon25 wrote: post #48
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI: Most "methylation" tests, books, and treatments are very firmly in the alternative medicine category. Much of it is pseudoscience. It is true that a small subset of people can have a certain set of mutations that has clinical significance, but the alternative medicine community has been hard at work trying to expand this condition to cover far more people than it actually does. One common trick is to perform as…

As someone who personally experienced a rapid and significant resolution of ADHD, fatigue, and other symptoms as a result of a methylation test + methionine supplementation (supervised and recommended by a mainstream medical doctor at my primary care clinic), this is amusing to read. Cue the "but anecdotal experiences aren't valid" hyperbole. > Any test that claims to be relevant to so many different medical conditio…

I’m glad you found resolution for your personal symptoms with the help of a doctor.

The mistake is promoting methylation quackery as the underlying cause of everything, as your link above did. It’s obvious quackery and the medical community unanimously agrees (see my references above).

I’m glad you found a specific help for your specific situation. Extending that to be a wide-scale affliction of the population is the mistake.

I hope everyone reading this thread takes time to review mainstream medical sources (not naturopathic authors, test peddling websites, or anecdotes)

Re: Hannah Gadsby on her autism diagnosis

#88

Post by brigandish »

WesternWind wrote: post #80
brigandish wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But as the myths are so firmly embedded into popular (mis)understanding, I don’t have the luxury to skip over them, so it is just a sad reality that I have to waste even more of my time to bring many of you up to speed. As the quote shows, the article is full of sneering, it’s just a sad fact that I have to waste my time pointing it out to you. Apologies for that but I think directing her words towards you exposes…

To be clear, this is a book extract, not something she wrote for the guardian, but for someone who picked up her book to read. She says many of you. Why are you including yourself in the many, if you already knew what she has to say? Why are you so upset by a comedian writing about her experiences that you have to engage with it at all? I just don't see a sneer. I just took a bit and reread the while thing. What I re…

> But I don't think I'll convince you to see it my way, so I'll drop this.

You managed to have your say, which was just as snide as hers, so now I'll have mine.

> To be clear, this is a book extract, not something she wrote for the guardian, but for someone who picked up her book to read.

If this has a relevance, I fail to see it.

> She says many of you. Why are you including yourself in the many, if you already knew what she has to say?

That makes no sense.

a) I did not include myself in the many.

b) I also made no indication that I had. You can always quote me if you wish but as I only wrote two sentences, one of which was a parody of her words, I think that's going to be difficult for you.

c) I didn't know what she has to say, I made reference to the sneering, the delivery, not the content.

> Why are you so upset

I'm not upset, at least, not by her words.

> by a comedian

I'm yet to see her tell a funny joke but each to their own.

> writing about her experiences that you have to engage with it at all?

I was engaging with you. Are you telling me how to spend my time, on a forum, and implying that I shouldn't have my say, while having your say, on a forum?

What are you on about?

> I just don't see a sneer.

It’s just a sad fact that I have to waste my time pointing it out to you, repeatedly. > I just took a bit and reread the while thing. What I read is frustration, not superiority.

I'd feel better if you'd taken the time to read my comment properly and not infer things from it that were only the product of your imagination.

> I don't think she's looking down on folks who haven't had her struggles. I think she wants people to understand them, perhaps so they can be more understanding to autistic folks in their lives.

Like her "jokes", her attempts to provoke understanding look like the complete opposite of what I'd expect. I mean, it's just so draining for her to have to spend time explaining herself, in her own words, in her own book. How does she do it? Such a hero.

> But I don't think I'll convince you to see it my way, so I'll drop this.

Please do.

Re: Hannah Gadsby on her autism diagnosis

#89

Post by Arete314159 »

thenerdhead wrote: post #3

I have spent majority of my adult life operating under the idea that I'm on the spectrum. I have no problem sharing that detail of my life as I sit in front of a computer for more than 8 hours most days and would identify as introverted and eccentric in my own ways. What I found interesting is that as I experimented with lowering my screen time and doing more analog activities, my symptoms that had me believing I was…

I was always "geeky" and a little behind in terms of socio-emotional development. In recent years I started wondering if I was on the spectrum.

But the more I've delved into it, I've come to the conclusion that no, it's just that I was geeky + raised in a home with abuse, and that when you don't get your emotional needs met in childhood, you skip a lot of developmental milestones and have to make up for them later.

There's more than one reason to feel like you don't "get" certain things about social interaction.

Re: Hannah Gadsby on her autism diagnosis

#90

Post by celdon25 »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #87
celdon25 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who personally experienced a rapid and significant resolution of ADHD, fatigue, and other symptoms as a result of a methylation test + methionine supplementation (supervised and recommended by a mainstream medical doctor at my primary care clinic), this is amusing to read. Cue the "but anecdotal experiences aren't valid" hyperbole. > Any test that claims to be relevant to so many different medical conditio…

I’m glad you found resolution for your personal symptoms with the help of a doctor. The mistake is promoting methylation quackery as the underlying cause of everything, as your link above did. It’s obvious quackery and the medical community unanimously agrees (see my references above). I’m glad you found a specific help for your specific situation. Extending that to be a wide-scale affliction of the population is the…

My guy, the parent commenter has been suffering for decades. It’s not unreasonable to try new ideas at this point, nor is it unreasonable to assume that mainstream medicine has done what it can. The cost of the test is relatively low, and the risks of taking SAMe or L-methionine are low as well. The only risk here is that to the bottom line of the AMA cartel.

The test I linked is the same one that I had taken, don’t judge a book by its cover.

It’s not a catch all for everything, that’s why I suggested a $200 test, not a $20 supplement.

> Extending that to be a wide-scale affliction of the population is the mistake.

The very real pandemic of not-my-problem-itis is what led to this, with Obamacare making it into a gasoline fire. Good for profits, bad for life expectancy.

> the medical community unanimously agrees (see my references above).

The whole premise of that Cleveland Clinic article is based on the idea that genetic testing costs thousands of dollars as it does under the AMA cartel prices. Mayo Clinic for example charges $7000 for a few dozen generic markers. The genetic test I suggested is $99, and you get the entire part of the genome that has variations among humans. I would agree with the article that you shouldn’t pay an arm and a leg for a single genetic marker, but that’s not what we are talking about here.

Post reply on HN