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

High levels of oestrogens in the womb linked to autism

sciencedaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 190 posts

Re: High levels of oestrogens in the womb linked to autism

#181

Post by navigatesol »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #173
navigatesol wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people behave in a way you would expect. This is absurd. How do you have any idea what "you would expect"? > I'm using normal in the statistical sense. Statistically, most people are very neurologically similar and then some people are (relatively) wildly different. First, define "very neurologically similar". Second, "most people are similar" in a normal distribution because that's the way the distribution is…

Even without being able to consciously explain their expectations, humans are often consciously aware when their expectations have been violated. Experimentally, there are lots of responses that can be tracked. Unexpected stimuli causes slower reactions, longer focus times, and stronger memories. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tops.12292

I don't see the part of that paper that explains that people "expect" the same things; that there's some "normal expectations" in the population, which is what the OP is arguing.

There's a funny thing that happens every time an article on autism comes up on this site where a bunch of commenters state they have some degree of autism. This aligns perfect with the OP's argument: everyone is "normal", but I'm not. I'm special.

It's why "normies" is a thing. Everyone sees everyone else as "normal", but they're different. I wonder why that is?

Re: High levels of oestrogens in the womb linked to autism

#183

Post by lazyasciiart »

navigatesol wrote: post #181
lazyasciiart wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even without being able to consciously explain their expectations, humans are often consciously aware when their expectations have been violated. Experimentally, there are lots of responses that can be tracked. Unexpected stimuli causes slower reactions, longer focus times, and stronger memories. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tops.12292

I don't see the part of that paper that explains that people "expect" the same things; that there's some "normal expectations" in the population, which is what the OP is arguing. There's a funny thing that happens every time an article on autism comes up on this site where a bunch of commenters state they have some degree of autism. This aligns perfect with the OP's argument: everyone is "normal", but I'm not. I'm sp…

Ah, when you said > how would you know what "you would expect" I thought you were challenging the idea that people know what they expect from others. It sounds like you were actually challenging the idea that people can know what others expect?

Re: High levels of oestrogens in the womb linked to autism

#184

Post by loceng »

Zenst wrote: post #147
loceng wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you've said overall makes me think you're hypersensitive to sound - and that if you can afford a ~$50 USD hearing test/audiogram to check for imbalances in your hearing then it'd be worthwhile confirming that; it's not a standard audiogram, you'd have to call around to ask and find out if they know what that is - and is meant for use with Berard's Auditory Integration Training) which then can confirm imbalances.…

"Do you remember having ear infections as a child, and were they painful at all" No, though tonsils often a source of discontent, so removed. Though nobody ever warned that they could grow back, though not a troublesome size. As for ear balance, no issue there.

If you haven't had an audiogram specifically to check for imbalances in your hearing, then standard audiograms won't tell you.

When I was in Grade 2 I had trouble focusing in class - they brought in an audiologist to see if I had trouble hearing. They were surprised that no, in fact, I could hear extremely well - however they didn't recognize that as a problem, hypersensitive hearing.

A standard audiogram only checks to see that you can hear well enough in each ear, at different frequencies, say at 15 decibels. Checking for imbalances they check instead for HOW LOW of a decibel you can hear at different frequencies. Say in your right ear the lowest you can hear 1000 Hz frequency is 15 decibels, but in your left ear you hear at 10 decibels - that would show an imbalance by 5 decibels. Very few audiologists do this test, so I'd be very surprised if you found stumbled into one who did check it in this way.

Re: High levels of oestrogens in the womb linked to autism

#185

Post by nicoburns »

liara_k wrote: post #64
hoorayimhelping wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I'd like to have a word with whoever downvoted this. Why? The comment is essentially: "I read someone claiming something one time." It has no sources, no links to anything to explore or understand, nothing. There's not even a link to the article or story. Just someone making a wild statement on the internet.

While anecdotes aren't evidence themselves, they're extremely useful (1) when there aren't scientific studies available and (2) for generating theories that can later be tested. Whether they're interpreted as an invitation for further discussion or unjustified proof depends on how responsible the audience is.

I'd argue that anecdotes are evidence. Albeit much weaker evidence than a scientific study. In the absense of better evidence, it would be foolish to disregard them entirely.

Re: High levels of oestrogens in the womb linked to autism

#186

Post by [deleted] »

floatingatoll wrote: post #52
Nimitz14 wrote: post #21

> However, the team cautioned that these findings cannot and should not be used to screen for autism. "We are interested in understanding autism, not preventing it," added Professor Baron-Cohen. I don't understand why not?

It's unclear which "not" you're addressing — "should not be used to screen for autism" — They have identified a statistically-valid link between estrogen levels and autism, and are worried that parents will say "I have high estrogen levels, I'd better terminate my pregnancy and try again". Sadly, some parents will. "not preventing [autism]" — Imagine that autism is what makes hermits (such as Merlin the Wizard) valua…

[deleted]

Re: High levels of oestrogens in the womb linked to autism

#187

Post by noetic_techy »

bob_theslob646 wrote: post #111
noetic_techy wrote: post #92

I've had a sneaking feeling that a lot of the phyto-estrogen compounds out their were eventually going to be linked to autism. Expect to see a massive consumer wave against anything containing these compounds: fragrances and any items that contain fragrance, dyes, receipt paper, soy, both BPA and BPS in soft plastics, etc.

Do you know any off the top of your head?

As far as compounds with phyto-estrogens. Plenty. A great book on the topic:

The Case Against Fragrance - Kate Grenville

Also, I think this story from 2014 about BPS is the biggest bombshell to consumers that just hasn't hit critical awareness yet:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-free-plastic-...

All my kids drink from stainless steel or glass now. It's made me a bit of a plasti-phobe.

Re: High levels of oestrogens in the womb linked to autism

#188

Post by roguecoder »

SkyBelow wrote: post #98
technothrasher wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if I could go back in time and become normal I don't know if this is good news, or bad news but... there is no normal . I know what you meant, what it would be like without ASD. But I'm not sure that would give you any particular insight into anything other than simply being a different person.

> there is no normal. In a classroom of 30 students, where 1 is viewed by the rest as abnormal, there is normal. Yes, it is only a social construct whose impact is based on our personal experience and the society in which we live, but this is true of many things which I think we would not tolerate being dismissed so readily.

But that's not what happens, despite what people seem to think. On average 1 of those students will be Autistic, but also 3 of those students will have ADHD, 2 or 3 will have "personality disorders", 2 will experience childhood trauma, 1 will be a high-testosterone child assigned the sex "female" at birth, 3 will have specific learning disabilities and 1 or 2 will be considered "gifted".

When half the class isn't neurotypical, being neurotypical isn't any more "normal" than having blue eyes is "normal".

Re: High levels of oestrogens in the womb linked to autism

#189

Post by roguecoder »

danielg6 wrote: post #65
mrlala wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there is no normal I mean, yeah there is? There are 7 billion people on this planet. If you could create some score of peoples intelligence, how they react/respond to people, their normal physical movements and put that into a distribution the autistic people would definitely be on the tail end of the curves. Sure everyone is different in various ways- but a lot of those differences are very small compared to the di…

It’s just semantics. There are negative connotations associated with calling someone “normal” versus “abnormal”. I’m sure you’re polite enough to not describe people in wheel chairs as “abnormal”. The non-controversial terms that people use related to issues like autism are “neurotypical” and “neurodivergent”.

Blond hair is less common in the US than autism, but it would be considered very strange to call brown-haired people "normal" and blond-haired people "abnormal".

Re: High levels of oestrogens in the womb linked to autism

#190

Post by dragonwriter »

roguecoder wrote: post #189
danielg6 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s just semantics. There are negative connotations associated with calling someone “normal” versus “abnormal”. I’m sure you’re polite enough to not describe people in wheel chairs as “abnormal”. The non-controversial terms that people use related to issues like autism are “neurotypical” and “neurodivergent”.

Blond hair is less common in the US than autism, but it would be considered very strange to call brown-haired people "normal" and blond-haired people "abnormal".

> Blond hair is less common in the US than autism

The stats I can find quickly suggest blond hair in the US is around 3%, and autism in the US is around 1.7%.

Post reply on HN