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

Neurodiversity

edge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 77 posts

Re: Neurodiversity

#11

Post by rntz »

api wrote: post #7
astrange wrote: post #2

Everyone always wants to prevent cures for autism, but no one ever suggests inventing something that gives people autism. (It was sort of a plot point in a Vernor Vinge novel. And Brave New World?)

Problem is there is autism like (maybe) Einstein or Tesla and then there is autism where the child can't communicate or adapt to any form of human social interaction or contact. The former is neurodiversity, the latter a debilitating disease. These are not the same thing and need different terms.

Is there any evidence that they have different underlying causes or are otherwise fundamentally distinct rather than one simply being an extreme case of the other? (Honest question; I'm not familiar with the literature here.)

Or, even if they were in some sense fundamentally the same, is your argument that their effects are so practically different that they ought to be called by distinct names anyway?

Re: Neurodiversity

#12

Post by wbl »

api wrote: post #7
astrange wrote: post #2

Everyone always wants to prevent cures for autism, but no one ever suggests inventing something that gives people autism. (It was sort of a plot point in a Vernor Vinge novel. And Brave New World?)

Problem is there is autism like (maybe) Einstein or Tesla and then there is autism where the child can't communicate or adapt to any form of human social interaction or contact. The former is neurodiversity, the latter a debilitating disease. These are not the same thing and need different terms.

They are the same thing, just as someone with a slight sniffle and someone with a sinus infection can both have a cold, and there are lots of places in between. We've also gotten a lot better at treatment: a significant fraction of children with large language delays end up living independently.

Re: Neurodiversity

#13

Post by sethrin »

Pica_soO wrote: post #6

The actual question is- what is or was neuro-diversity useful for? Its a uncomfortable question, because the answers may insult conservative and progressive comfort zones. The publicly condemned sadistic murderer, might be a perfectly adapted model-citizen for a society that wents savage every second generation. The schizoid paranoid might be have been a model citizen in society ravaged by disease and bubonic plague,…

There is no need to assume a reason for genetic variance or a particular genetic expression. The idea that evolution is directed, that each change is somehow purposeful has been fairly conclusively disproven: genetic drift has been observed nearly universally. As speculative fiction your ideas are somewhat interesting. I don't know if you've ever tried your hand at a short story, but it could be a good premise.

Re: Neurodiversity

#14

Post by kosma »

api wrote: post #7
astrange wrote: post #2

Everyone always wants to prevent cures for autism, but no one ever suggests inventing something that gives people autism. (It was sort of a plot point in a Vernor Vinge novel. And Brave New World?)

Problem is there is autism like (maybe) Einstein or Tesla and then there is autism where the child can't communicate or adapt to any form of human social interaction or contact. The former is neurodiversity, the latter a debilitating disease. These are not the same thing and need different terms.

The recent developments of DSM-5 and ICD-11 show the opposite: decades of research failed to show any scientifically valid distinction between functional and non-functional autism. That's why they are being conflated into a single "autism spectrum disorder" category.

Re: Neurodiversity

#15

Post by yummyfajitas »

rntz wrote: post #9
astrange wrote: post #2

Everyone always wants to prevent cures for autism, but no one ever suggests inventing something that gives people autism. (It was sort of a plot point in a Vernor Vinge novel. And Brave New World?)

This isn't as inconsistent as it seems. People would probably also be equally uncomfortable with both the idea of "editing" an embryo's genome to make it light-skinned, and the inverse idea of editing it to make it dark-skinned.

Why are people uncomfortable with this?

While it's not important enough for genetic engineering on it's own, I'd probably edit my children to be darker. Having spent a few days on the beach in Thailand, the genetic inferiority of my own fair skin is quite visible and painful.

Re: Neurodiversity

#16

Post by up_so_floating »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #15
rntz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't as inconsistent as it seems. People would probably also be equally uncomfortable with both the idea of "editing" an embryo's genome to make it light-skinned, and the inverse idea of editing it to make it dark-skinned.

Why are people uncomfortable with this? While it's not important enough for genetic engineering on it's own, I'd probably edit my children to be darker. Having spent a few days on the beach in Thailand, the genetic inferiority of my own fair skin is quite visible and painful.

Your body evolved skin to suit an environment other than a Thai beach. I would not consider that genetic inferiority.

Re: Neurodiversity

#17

Post by bbarn »

kosma wrote: post #14
api wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is there is autism like (maybe) Einstein or Tesla and then there is autism where the child can't communicate or adapt to any form of human social interaction or contact. The former is neurodiversity, the latter a debilitating disease. These are not the same thing and need different terms.

The recent developments of DSM-5 and ICD-11 show the opposite: decades of research failed to show any scientifically valid distinction between functional and non-functional autism. That's why they are being conflated into a single "autism spectrum disorder" category.

Those books exist as a method for billing insurance. The DSM only recently (1983) stopped considering homosexuality a diagnosis.

As a result we're hearing the phrase "somewhere on the spectrum" for any number of behaviors we don't see fitting the norm, and the reality of autism is not this "beautiful mind" scenario for many, but instead a crippling illness like the AP mentions. They are definitely not the same thing to the people who live with them.

The article is completely centered around the media image that autism creates geniuses, and that's a dangerous, misleading idea at best. The reality of living with it is usually much more ugly. Children who often become grown adults who can't make connections between cause and effect violently lashing out, throwing feces, biting care givers, screaming, screaming, and more screaming.

We should absolutely keep looking for ways to prevent and try to treat/cure it, and not act like everything is fine and great and accept it as diversity, for the sake of those who can't live normally.

Re: Neurodiversity

#18

Post by jessriedel »

kosma wrote: post #14
api wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is there is autism like (maybe) Einstein or Tesla and then there is autism where the child can't communicate or adapt to any form of human social interaction or contact. The former is neurodiversity, the latter a debilitating disease. These are not the same thing and need different terms.

The recent developments of DSM-5 and ICD-11 show the opposite: decades of research failed to show any scientifically valid distinction between functional and non-functional autism. That's why they are being conflated into a single "autism spectrum disorder" category.

No, differences of degree are still scientifically valid. The statement is just that the symptoms don't have a multimodal distribution.

Re: Neurodiversity

#19

Post by teraflop »

SonOfLilit wrote: post #8
astrange wrote: post #2

Everyone always wants to prevent cures for autism, but no one ever suggests inventing something that gives people autism. (It was sort of a plot point in a Vernor Vinge novel. And Brave New World?)

I think you're talking about Distress by Greg Egan? Was the book about the announcement of a Theory of Everything on an artificial island?

Pretty sure OP was referring to A Deepness in the Sky.

Re: Neurodiversity

#20

Post by krapp »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #15
rntz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't as inconsistent as it seems. People would probably also be equally uncomfortable with both the idea of "editing" an embryo's genome to make it light-skinned, and the inverse idea of editing it to make it dark-skinned.

Why are people uncomfortable with this? While it's not important enough for genetic engineering on it's own, I'd probably edit my children to be darker. Having spent a few days on the beach in Thailand, the genetic inferiority of my own fair skin is quite visible and painful.

> Why are people uncomfortable with this?

Some aspects of cultural, ethnic and religious identity are associated with and expressed by genetic factors like skin color.

For African Americans, just to give an example, the premise of "editing" children to be "whiter" might appear to enable racial genocide.

It doesn't apply only to skin color - some deaf people would consider genetically engineering away deafness an attack on "deaf culture."

Post reply on HN