Live data from Hacker News

Does watching television trigger autism? (2007)

nber.org

21–30 of 85 posts

Re: Does watching television trigger autism? (2007)

#21

This is a hilariously bad line of reasoning and basically a signal for me to take econ researchers less seriously.

"Diagnoses of autism have risen dramatically over the past few decades, from an estimated one in 2500 children thirty years ago to one in 150 today." is one of the first lines of the article. If you are so smart, and only you are so smart, what environmental factor has increased that rapidly?

We're much better at diagnosing it than we used to be.

Re: Does watching television trigger autism? (2007)

#22

This is a hilariously bad line of reasoning and basically a signal for me to take econ researchers less seriously.

"Diagnoses of autism have risen dramatically over the past few decades, from an estimated one in 2500 children thirty years ago to one in 150 today." is one of the first lines of the article. If you are so smart, and only you are so smart, what environmental factor has increased that rapidly?

Maybe because it's easier to get a diagnosis now and parents are more inclined to get their children checked? The medical system is not unchanging over the years.

This is the same kind of thoughtful question as "why are there so many more left-handed/gay/trans people than x years ago" - because social factors have changed visibility of these traits, not because they didn't exist.

Re: Does watching television trigger autism? (2007)

#23
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corrected, thanks.

Correlation does not Imply Causation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau... Edit: Add; White Noise : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_noise Pink Noise : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_noise Red (Brownian) Noise : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_noise Purple Noise : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_noise Grey Noise : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_noise

https://xkcd.com/552/

Re: Does watching television trigger autism? (2007)

#24
post #17

Autism seem to be a politicized issue by looking at the replies. As far as I can tell the paper is nothing but honest truth seeking, you know a study doesn't equal truth, the article itself doesn't say it is a confirmed hypothesis. And while correlation doesn't mean causation, when you see a correlation, the first thing you do is you investigate if it is a causation too. The most logical thing to do and thanks God sm…

All it tells me is that the standard for evidence in economics is much lower than the standard of evidence in medicine or sociology. This paper has some problems that run very deep in established methodology, so while it might be good faith, it's also useless.

Re: Does watching television trigger autism? (2007)

#25
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see how living next to a major road or having a noisy environment could disturb a child's sleep at night. Perhaps it is the role of noisy cars that disturb the sleep that triggers these changes? I was a strange child that could only sleep if mother turned on a hair dryer next to me some nights. This is materially different from highways - I briefly got to experience what it was like living next to a noisy roa…

More likely would be tire particulates.

Don't underestimate noise pollution. It's a very real stressor.

Though, what's more likely is that a child with mild ASD is more obviously autistic under stress, which leads to diagnosis earlier.

Re: Does watching television trigger autism? (2007)

#26
post #20
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not diagnosis over environment?

While it can be argued for other things like ADHD, I doubt it can be argued for cases of severe autism.

1. The quote says "diagnoses of autism" not "diagnoses of severe autism" so if the definition of autism has expanded over time due to improvements in our understanding of autism (which it has) the diagnosis argument is far more effective.

2. It is easier for children of poorer people to get an autism diagnosis now than it was 50 years ago, so even severe cases might not have shown up in the stats if the child was born to a poor family.

Re: Does watching television trigger autism? (2007)

#27
post #12

If you're going to post joke research, please don't do it about autism. It's already bad enough as it is with all the quackery going around.

I don't think it's joke research, I think they chose an effect that might have positive correlation and proved that, then showed at least one environmental factor that could explain it and how you could find correlation there too. They say themselves at the end that they aren't trying to say it's conclusive evidence in any direction, I believe they're just trying to generally indicate that there does seem to be some…

In other words: Hand waving.

This is the kind of "research" that leads to CNN headlines like "TV is turning your child autistic!", and other such scare stories for frightened and confused parents that lead to more bullshit salves and treatments that only harm autistics even more (as if we're not getting shit on enough already).

And if it's not intended as a joke, that's even worse.

Re: Does watching television trigger autism? (2007)

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Diagnoses of autism have risen dramatically over the past few decades, from an estimated one in 2500 children thirty years ago to one in 150 today." is one of the first lines of the article. If you are so smart, and only you are so smart, what environmental factor has increased that rapidly?

We're much better at diagnosing it than we used to be.

Agreed. I have a friend who has been autistic their entire life, but was only acknowledged/diagnosed in the past little while, in their 30's. Back when they were a little kid, it was interpreted as just being a challenging/picky/quirky child, nothing "diagnosis-worthy". If the medical system and society better understood autism back then, it would have been noticed and diagnosed back then. I have heard the same approximate story over and over.

Re: Does watching television trigger autism? (2007)

#29
post #17

Autism seem to be a politicized issue by looking at the replies. As far as I can tell the paper is nothing but honest truth seeking, you know a study doesn't equal truth, the article itself doesn't say it is a confirmed hypothesis. And while correlation doesn't mean causation, when you see a correlation, the first thing you do is you investigate if it is a causation too. The most logical thing to do and thanks God sm…

All it tells me is that the standard for evidence in economics is much lower than the standard of evidence in medicine or sociology. This paper has some problems that run very deep in established methodology, so while it might be good faith, it's also useless.

What specific problems are you referring to?

Re: Does watching television trigger autism? (2007)

#30
post #17

Autism seem to be a politicized issue by looking at the replies. As far as I can tell the paper is nothing but honest truth seeking, you know a study doesn't equal truth, the article itself doesn't say it is a confirmed hypothesis. And while correlation doesn't mean causation, when you see a correlation, the first thing you do is you investigate if it is a causation too. The most logical thing to do and thanks God sm…

All it tells me is that the standard for evidence in economics is much lower than the standard of evidence in medicine or sociology. This paper has some problems that run very deep in established methodology, so while it might be good faith, it's also useless.

Sample size: 1.

Conclusion: the standard for evidence in economics is much lower than the standard of evidence in medicine or sociology.

Post reply on HN