Register to reply

Albert Einstein: High Functioning Autistic

by rhody
Tags: autism, einstein, high functioning
Share this thread:
DanP
#55
Mar25-10, 12:39 AM
P: 630
Quote Quote by ViewsofMars View Post

My concern is that young people reading this topic won't be swayed or confused by posts that are now strictly reflecting a discussion about autism. If you wish to learn about autism you can go to the National Academy of Sciences for further information.

http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=autism&submit=yes

Thank you,
Mars
So what's the issue ? No talk about a disorder like Autism because you think it can confuse young readers ? Let ppl talk . It the best thing you can do :P
ViewsofMars
#56
Mar25-10, 12:53 AM
P: 463
Quote Quote by DanP View Post
So what's the issue ? No talk about a disorder like Autism because you think it can confuse young readers ? Let ppl talk . It the best thing you can do :P
DanP, I am an adult. I decide for myself the best thing I can do. I gave a two notices by way of a message. When or if the page turns over to the next (p.5) my messages may not be read. Your conversation will more than likely continue with Kajahtava which could lead some people including youth reading this topic to assume you are both talking about Einstein. I only wanted it to be documented that I have provided evidence on this page that Einstein was not autistic.

Furthermore, talking about a serious topic like autism requires the very best and latest research in the area of autism by professional scientists. The link I provided by the National Academy of Sciences is peer-reviewed by the scientific community. It is a valuable resourse. I have yet to see you or Kajahtava use any information from that source.
DanP
#57
Mar25-10, 01:17 AM
P: 630
Quote Quote by ViewsofMars View Post
DanP, I am an adult
I dont think anyone here contested the fact you are an adult.


Quote Quote by ViewsofMars View Post
I only wanted it to be documented that I have provided evidence on this page that Einstein was not autistic.
.
Actually, Einstein being dead, it's close to impossible for us to diagnose him. Hence I don't think you can provide evidence for either case. Hence it is OK to consider him normal.

But let me make it very clear, it is my position that your out of context quotes provide no proof whatsoever about the position where Einstein might be on the autistic spectrum.
That what you posted does not constitute any evidence whatsoever. Don't be so concerned about the readability of your posts, and dont overstate their importance, and ask others to refrain from posting so young humans see your "evidence".

Quote Quote by ViewsofMars View Post
I have yet to see you or Kajahtava use any information from that source.
So what;s your point ? I have yet to see you using any information from your own sources as well.
Kajahtava
#58
Mar25-10, 01:31 AM
P: 92
I think diagnosing living beings is about as irresponsible by the way. Or at least when the diagnostics criteria are as vague as in DSM-IV.

Diagnosing a living person with cancer is fine, in fact, diagnosing a dead person to have died form cancer after an autopsy is also awesome business as far as I'm concerned.

Living in the praetence that a psychiatric training fosters a mental discipline to overrule the power of suggestion is not, all research into it clearly shows that psychiatrists are just as prone to mental biases as you and I, in fact, probably the average psychiatrist is more so than either you or I DanP. Studying physics trains one to be able to handle 'counter-intuitiveness', a thing psychiatrists seem to have less of a mental discipline for.
rhody
#59
Mar25-10, 07:12 AM
PF Gold
rhody's Avatar
P: 765
Here is some hopeful research being done to diagnose autism, (without applying DSM IV criteria) and then treat it.

UofL Neuroscientist So Close To Autism Breakthrough He's Helping Fund Research
(LOUISVILLE) -- New findings could mean an incredible treatment for people with autism -- so incredible that a researcher at the University of Louisville is digging into his own pockets to make it happen as quickly as possible. WAVE 3 Medical Reporter Lori Lyle has more in this exclusive report.

Dr. Manuel Casanova, a neuroscientist at the University of Louisville, is passionate about his research. His most recent published study finds drastic differences in the brains of autistic individuals. And now, with this knowledge, he's eager to move to the next step: treatment.
The breakthrough discovery is the result of a 3-year study involving top scientists around the world.

Dr. Casanova's team at the University of Louisville was responsible for conducting the study that analyzed tissue from 12 brains -- six of them taken from people with autism.

He says the results are unquestionable, and explain symptoms exhibited from autistic patients, such as trouble speaking.

"It means that we have uncovered something very important, because it has explanatory powers," Casanova says.

The brain strands or minicolumns of autism patients have more cells, but they are narrower and more densely packed -- which can limit the brain's ability to send messages.

Dr. Casanova says that's because "there's not enough juice to actually power very long connections in the brain."

Examining tissues from a normal brain and the brain of an autistic person, Dr. Casanova explains the differences. "The more bluish staining actually means more cells present," he says.

More cells and smaller cells, making up tiny brain strands, or minicolumns. These minicolums take in information, process it and respond to it.

But the increased amount of cells works to increase other abilities -- like mathematics.

Armed with this knowledge, Dr. Casanova is ready to begin working on wiping out autism entirely. "Knowing the pathology, what is wrong with the brains of autistic individuals, opens the door to potential strategies that may actually even lead to a cure."

Dr. Casanova's first step: developing a brain stimulator to bulk-up the brain strands. And he feels so strongly about the potential that he's ready to pay for it with his own money. "I approached the university, told them I needed equipment for preliminary studies and I would match the money with my own money."

The cost for the equipment that could forever change the diagnosis of autism: $40,000. Dr. Casanova is confident he's on the verge of a major breakthrough. "Something good is about to happen," he said.

Prevention is of course the main goal for a cure, and Dr. Casanova is working on that, too. He says research findings so far point to both genetics and the environment.
This finding dovetails almost perfectly with my last Post #35 in this thread reproduced in part here for ease of reading, that provides evidence that in fact people with autism have "delayed motor skills" in following the ball in the test. Dr Casanova's findings provide physical evidence for the delay. He says that the bundles provide evidence for increased ability in mathematics.
In the video he performs an experiment that suggest that impairment in visual integration is associated with something underneath, that of dynamic information processing associated with autism, which he proves from the experiment that there is evidence to suggest that it is.

Here is a link TED video by Pawan Sinha: Visual Neuroscientist at MIT.

If you want to see how he tests for it with an experiment, fast forward the video as directed below:

15:40 hypothesis described as suggested above

16:05 Experiment, child without autism anticipates where the ball in the pong game will be and the red dots on the game board reflect this, the eyes are always in FRONT of the moving ball, anticipating its next move.

16:30 Experiment, (child diagnosed with autism, I know, this is subjective based on the clinical diagnosis, which is not perfect) cannot anticipate where the ball in the pong game is going. The red dots FOLLOW the moving ball.
Rhody...
DanP
#60
Mar25-10, 07:45 AM
P: 630
I believe advances in various neurosciences and various new grain imaging techniques will help a lot in helping persons afflicted with various disorders, and will contribute to more objective diagnostic criteria.
Kajahtava
#61
Mar25-10, 07:51 AM
P: 92
Now that is what I'm talking about. No psychiatrist giving a 'professional opinion', brain scan, done, minimize human interpretation at all costs.

And of course, if the treatment is corporal in nature too, we've a done deal.
rhody
#62
Mar25-10, 08:21 AM
PF Gold
rhody's Avatar
P: 765
Quote Quote by Kajahtava View Post
Now that is what I'm talking about. No psychiatrist giving a 'professional opinion', brain scan, done, minimize human interpretation at all costs.
And of course, if the treatment is corporal in nature too, we've a done deal.
At the end of the day for me at least, ones opinion's matter little if the evidence at hand is convincing, is scrutinzed for safety using double blind studies, and Phase I, II, III Clinical Trials are conducted, documented and passed by the FDA.

It is a shame though that many treatments, for example herceptin to treat HER2-New type breast cancer approved almost ten years ago, would have never made it for FDA approved use if it were not for private funding of Phase III Clinical Trials (it cost over 50 million dollars and two years to conduct, and if it were not for private contributions from Revlon Cosmetic's and the determination of a single doctor, we would not have it today). This fact has not gone unnoticed. I have family member's who are alive today as proof of it and am deeply grateful.

Rhody...
Kajahtava
#63
Mar25-10, 08:46 AM
P: 92
Well, the point is. A lot of drugs indeed ease the symptoms of their targeted condition, the side effects are simply often not worth it, a common thing with antidepressants and anti-psychotics is that they simply make you emotionally flat and make your mind numb.

Also, together with the hypothesis of depressive realism, the fact that drugs that are supposed to curb paranoia and depression all have in common that they remove one's awareness and attention to detail appears to me as quite dubious... when I was under psychiatric care, the psychiatrists clearly simply labelled every dark thought under delusion. Maybe some were, but a lot of things the psychiatrist couldn't have checked the validity of, how's the psychiatrist going to know if some people in my year don't like me I wonder?
physicsdude30
#64
Mar25-10, 12:48 PM
P: 37
Quote Quote by Kajahtava View Post
long after I had lost this diagnosis
Some research with

Neuroscience

http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/neuro.asp

Genetics and Proteomics

http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/genpro.asp

Hormones

http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/hormones.asp

Perception and Cognition

http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/percog.asp


You say you were “misdiagnosed”? Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding here, you're not saying because of that autism and Asperger's don't exist?
physicsdude30
#65
Mar25-10, 12:58 PM
P: 37
Quote Quote by Kajahtava View Post
So you place him in front of this decisive test:

1: a person enters the room with a toy, there are two cushions in the room, he places it under one of the cushions, and goes away.
2: a different person enters, he looks under the cushion, sees the toy, displaces it to the other cushion, and goes out of the room also.
3: first person enters again, where will he look for his toy?

I was dumbstruck by this test? What were they asking me? It had to be some kind of trick quaestion right?
Although I haven't heard of that being a diagnostic test, I do know most normal four year olds and those with Down's Syndrome get these types of questions right if they see a video or play for what's going on; however, most four year olds with high functioning autism don't get it right. There are many tests that find similar results. Regardless of whether autism is "a condition", if you don't thnk it is a "clinical impairment" of understanding certain aspects of social communication, then maybe you can explain to all of us why the Down's Syndrome out do autistics on these?

If those with Down's Syndrome and normal children “consistently” do better than those with Aspergers/HFA on "many tests" of ability to find out what another person is aware of/intents, plus their social isolation, doesn't that mean something? As far as social communication impairment goes, quantitatively you can say those with autism consistently generally “score lower on these tests” than Down's Syndrome.





This may explain why some Asperger/High Functioning Autism individuals might be very intelligent but have troubles with communication and social abilities to the point it “clinically” interferes. By communication abilities that doesn't mean written communication or semantics (which it's said they're good at that, particularly on the Internet), but rather using social communication/context to help others know where they're coming from. AS/HFA constantly take others out of context and vice versa, to the point it causes issues and the AS/HFA constantly thinks everyone around them have issues. A lot of them will also get into unnecessary weird fights because of that and since they take things literally.
Kajahtava
#66
Mar25-10, 01:28 PM
P: 92
Quote Quote by physicsdude30 View Post
So, what's the point if it also appears in their relatives?

I'm sure you can find some neural difference between people that are creative, and those that aren't, that's not to say that being not creative is some mental illness or hard category.

You can also find patterns in people's metabolism that gain weight sooner, and also in their relatives.

My point is that it's not a hard binary distinction between having autism and not having it. There is at this point no justification whatsoever to just say that they lack some social aptitude, just as you can say some people lack creative aptitude.

Now, a different situation is people who got a blow to the head and can't recognise faces any more but can recognise inanimate objects, or the reverse, that's a binary distinction, you either have it or you don't. It's not a professional 'opinion', it's hard and hard to miss.

Same argument applies, I bet you can also find some genes that are more common in creative people, or people that like to have pets.

You can find these things for all kinds of categories you make up. What I want is hard unmistakable binary thing. So hard in fact that it suffices to make a diagnosis based on that, and that alone.

If *** existed as hard category, than talks and evaluations are not necessary . A doctor can diagnose cancer without having ever spoken to a patient based on X-ray's alone, that's hard.

http://blog.teenmentalhealth.org/200...it-or-lose-it/

Not being able to use Google? psychiatric illness that can be cured by using Google to train?

Or maybe, just maybe, every skill you can have or lack is in some way caused by how your neurons are wired?

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...fw/Photo78.jpg

Little beard growth, hormonal illness or maybe just a continuum amongst people?

Not understanding physics: mental illness that 90% of the population has, or 95%, or 85%, or 70%, or 99%, where do you draw the line?

The line for autism has been drawn up more and more over the past years, people with very minute lackings in social skills that 20 years back would have just been called 'nerds' now have some medical reason behind.

You say you were “misdiagnosed”? Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding here, you're not saying because of that autism and Asperger's don't exist?
No, I mean the last psychiatrist that I had's 'professional opinion' is that I don't have it.

The only way in psychiatry to be misdiagnosed is if a later psychiatrist disagrees, as I said, it's not a hard discipline.

http://www.autreat.com/dsm4-autism.html

This is just too vague, I can justify creatively for 80% of the planet that they have these if I try my best to interpret things to fit them. And in fact, as I linked, that's what psychiatrists do, there have been countless studies that gave a subject, often an actor told to act a normal person a vague diagnosis and the psychiatrist then saw confirmation of that in the most stupid of things, writing a letter to your mother suddenly becomes neurotic note taking.

Besides, any diagnosis that uses 'or' is dubious, ideally it should have a set of requirements that are all fulfilled. If we assume for sake of argument that all those items can be objectively tested, it's possible that two people have the same illness while sharing no symptoms.

I've had (psychiatrist's opinions were), in order of appearance: depression, PDD-NOS, Asperger's syndrome, Multiple-complex Developmental Disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, depression, autophobia, psychosis, schizoaffectiveness

The very simple truth of the matter is that in terms of complications I have this: emotional flatness, obsession with small details, lack of a desire for social interaction, pessimism. These are things that all people can have and there is no indication that they come from a common source, but as I said before, diagnoses in psychiatry are just grouping some symptoms together without a proof that they have a common cause. As soon as some get's a wacky idea to group those symptoms together and call it ehh, I don't know 'paedantic social self-exclusion syndrome'? then I'd fit it yes. And it wouldn't be any less vague than any other diagnosis, I would just happen to have all the symptoms.

Psychiatry based on diagnoses is a bad idea, at max they should just get a list and check which complications you have and which you don't and don't group them together arbitrarily to then give them a name.
Kajahtava
#67
Mar25-10, 01:55 PM
P: 92
Quote Quote by physicsdude30 View Post
Although I haven't heard of that being a diagnostic test, I do know most normal four year olds and those with Down's Syndrome get these types of questions right if they see a video or play for what's going on; however, most four year olds with high functioning autism don't get it right. There are many tests that find similar results. Regardless of whether autism is "a condition", if you don't thnk it is a "clinical impairment" of understanding certain aspects of social communication, then maybe you can explain to all of us why the Down's Syndrome out do autistics on these?

If those with Down's Syndrome and normal children “consistently” do better than those with Aspergers/HFA on "many tests" of ability to find out what another person is aware of/intents, plus their social isolation, doesn't that mean something? As far as social communication impairment goes, quantitatively you can say those with autism consistently generally “score lower on these tests” than Down's Syndrome.
That's all perhaps true, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make, the point I was trying to make is what reason does the child have to say what it says?

I mean, I choose the wrong one, while I obviously was aware of what was going on right? I was aware of the perspective of the other? I just didn't make the error the clinician there made, I was trying to find a reason why some one would place a toy under a cushion, and why another person would enter and displace it. The only thing I could think of is that the first must have stolen it or hid it for the other, and found the option of the single bluff the most likely, though the double bluff did cross my mind.

But look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A4fN7FEzjc#t=4m40

Famous scene right? But Kenobi can't see the lightsaber, his view is obstructed? There is no way he can see it, so why is he turning his head? Maybe he felt it through the force, makes you wonder why maul didn't? But he turns his head and looks at it (a thing he can't see), thereby giving his plan away to maul to begin with. Force powers is X-ray eyes?

Another one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8riY1G_0CS8

They are standing on an isolated platform, cutting the scene to the part where they climb out of it seems to trick the audience, also, they had in any case take a good time to get to the portal and jump out of it. So why does he start discussing that only when they jump out of it? Also, they had the whole time to think of an escape plan and they had no guarantee that that ship was waiting for them, it's unthinkable that one of them doesn't get the idea 'We go out of that portal, set the portal to some planet, and jump into it again to avoid the explosion', and why isn't the portal the first part of the trap that blows up to trap the people inside the core? Flint's not that smart eh?

I could go on here about about any film, series, book, and what-not. It all falls apart the moment you start to see it from the characters perspective. Characters in many media for instance are apparently silent when the camera isn't targeted at them, it's of course done for the obvious reason that the audience wants to hear all they say. But it seems that the only reason to explain how the conversations always continue after the camerae cut is that they are simply silent when they have no screen time. They always just pick off where they left, even if it's days later in narrative time.

So what I'm trying to say is, if this happens in every book, every film, in fact, every reality show and every pop-Idol like thing would fall apart as staged as soon as you see it from the perspective of the characters itself, then no one does this?

And they don't, are not capable of diving in another's shoes, they are only capable of putting themselves their, not seeing it through the eyes of another person. Almost every reality show on TV is clearly, and I mean clearly staged the moment you see it from their eyes and realize that it no longer makes an iota of sense then.

This may explain why some Asperger/High Functioning Autism individuals might be very intelligent but have troubles with communication and social abilities to the point it “clinically” interferes. By communication abilities that doesn't mean written communication or semantics (which it's said they're good at that, particularly on the Internet), but rather using social communication/context to help others know where they're coming from. AS/HFA constantly take others out of context and vice versa, to the point it causes issues and the AS/HFA constantly thinks everyone around them have issues. A lot of them will also get into unnecessary weird fights because of that and since they take things literally.
Maybe it does, but it still doesn't justify it as an illness any more than for instance being easily offended, which also socially impairs.

Another thing is, that as a child, I used to think I lacked empathy, lacked a good sense of time, and a good sense of temperature and a good sense of people's intentions. I didn't, I was as good as any person, the difference was that many people simply stated their opinions about such things when they were also wrong. My mother would say 'person x is offended now.', and I couldn't see it so I thought I lacked a sense to that, but later on I began to see that about 50% of the time my mother said that, she was simply wrong about it. All that was happening is that I was more conservative to make an opinion, I simply had a better sense of knowing when I didn't have enough certainty to make a claim. I was as often right as my mother, my mother simply also said it when she was wrong, and I didn't, giving off the impression that she knew more about those things. I thought I couldn't estimate length and she could, it turned out that we both were about as good at it, she just gave her estimates any way even when they were grosely off, while I simply didn't give them unless I was sure they were accurate.

I don't think people are so correct that often when they estimate people's emotions, I'm not saying people who have autism are better, far from it, I'm just saying that from what I've observed around me, people make as much inaccurate as correct estimates at these things. The people that make their estimates regardless of how incorrect they are though give off the impression of being good at it, as often there isn't a thing that comes around to test it.

Also, an interesting thing about social intelligence tests is that they often assume that every solution works the best for each person. I am highly sceptical to that. If you ask me 'Say, a friend of yours is crying because her girlfriend left her, what would you do?' I would reply 'depends on the friend?', different people, different needs, many social intelligence tests however don't leave room for such a clause, and I've indeed come to observe that about all people try to help every person in the exact same way, and that was is the way that they, themselves, like to be helped. Same with advice, people don't give advice, they just tell people what they would do were they in their position.
apeiron
#68
Mar25-10, 04:43 PM
PF Gold
apeiron's Avatar
P: 2,432
Quote Quote by Kajahtava View Post
I mean, I choose the wrong one, while I obviously was aware of what was going on right? I was aware of the perspective of the other? I just didn't make the error the clinician there made, I was trying to find a reason why some one would place a toy under a cushion, and why another person would enter and displace it. The only thing I could think of is that the first must have stolen it or hid it for the other, and found the option of the single bluff the most likely, though the double bluff did cross my mind.
It is fascinating what you describe. Especially your alertness to fake aspects of on-screen interaction. I know that would be the last kind of thing I would notice.

But consider this. Are you using your intelligence to over-compensate perhaps? A "normal" person doing tests or watching movies would just respond to the implicit social cues of the situation. They would give the simple answer that they knew was expected from fine-grain and "obvious" social information. But if you find it difficult to pick up this kind of information at an automatic, preconscious level, then you might respond by over-analysing consciously to work out what must be the social expectations implicit in a standard cultural situation.

A "normal" person would just respond without thinking, and respond to a socially acceptable level of effort. This would also be why you feel many people don't really consider the viewpoint of others that deeply at all. They really don't rise above a habitual response.
Kajahtava
#69
Mar25-10, 06:01 PM
P: 92
Quote Quote by apeiron View Post
It is fascinating what you describe. Especially your alertness to fake aspects of on-screen interaction. I know that would be the last kind of thing I would notice.
You wouldn't be the last, if people noticed it, then surely these films would not be as profitable? It doesn't ruin a film per se if you notice it. But it's just a point that always removes the willing suspension of disbelieve and reminds you that it's a film you're watching. It's breaking the fourth wall.

But consider this. Are you using your intelligence to over-compensate perhaps? A "normal" person doing tests or watching movies would just respond to the implicit social cues of the situation. They would give the simple answer that they knew was expected from fine-grain and "obvious" social information. But if you find it difficult to pick up this kind of information at an automatic, preconscious level, then you might respond by over-analysing consciously to work out what must be the social expectations implicit in a standard cultural situation.

A "normal" person would just respond without thinking, and respond to a socially acceptable level of effort. This would also be why you feel many people don't really consider the viewpoint of others that deeply at all. They really don't rise above a habitual response.
Well, analytical reasoning requires prompt, if some one asked you 'what is wrong'? it's just hard to miss from my perspective, it's as if one of them had a big smile on their face in that situation, it just makes no sense from their perspective, it's hardly a thing one's to think a bit, it just makes no sense at all. I just see him stepping through that portal saying 'you gave up...' and it's completely out of character for him (or for about any person) to have waited so long to say that, I can't find a reason why he would wait so long, and then you realize 'Oh yeah, you're watching a film, sport, it's not supposed to make any sense', and you forget and move on.

By the way, some guys at tvtropes.org are also excellent in taking films apart for these things, not so much perspectives of characters, but some times too, they just really like to point out the things that don't add up.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...anatosRoulette

This is one of my favourites, writes use it a lot to create the illusion of a brilliant strategic planner, while if you like at it from the perspective of the planner, he or she usually took huge risks that would more often than not kill him or her if a tiny thing goes differently than expected. Of course, only revealing the plan afterwards tends to mask this for the audience that doesn't hang around on tvtropes.org.

As far as social settings go, a riddle for you here:

Jill is sleeping with her friend Jack. Jill goes to the bathroom at night, and so does Jack. The following morning Jack tells Jill that his mother complained that they should be more quiet in going to the bathroom, as his mother woke up twice because of the noise. Jill calls Jack a fool, why?
Freeman Dyson
#70
Mar25-10, 09:01 PM
P: 216
Many greats have been claimed to be on the autism spectrum. I wouldn't doubt it. People like Einstein and Newton were socially awkward and had other hallmarks of the condition. Like this guy.

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-03-...-said-no-to-1m
physicsdude30
#71
Mar25-10, 09:19 PM
P: 37
Quote Quote by Kajahtava View Post
Also, an interesting thing about social intelligence tests is that they often assume that every solution works the best for each person.
I think this one was extremely straightforward in reading a child's ability with mechanical cause-effect and understanding the intentions of others -


Mechanical cause-effect: Young normal, Down's Syndrome, and autistic children had to put the four randomized pictures in the correct sequence. Also not just this particular one but many other mechanical cause-effect sequences to get a mean score, along with the other two categories found below. Looks straightforward but the normal vs. downs vs. autistic consistantly scored differently.


Descriptive


Intentional




Remember in school how they teach us about experiment and control groups? Using the concept of controlling for other variables, if it was only because the high functioning autistic children were over analyzing thus missing what was going on, then how do you explain why they did well with all the Descriptive and Mechanical cause-effect sequencing of pictures, but not the Intentional category? The Down's Syndrome children did better than the high functioning autistic, which means there's something more than "intelligence" involved. Might there be actual impairments in delays of neurologically learning how to relate to others, knowing their intent, etc?

That other study when four year olds would figure out where such and such would look for an object even after someone else moved the object is quite straightforward to most, but most of the young autistic children whle the Down's Syndrome children got it.


(From earlier)

All those graphs look quite "quantitative" to me.
physicsdude30
#72
Mar25-10, 09:30 PM
P: 37
Quote Quote by Kajahtava View Post
Maybe it does, but it still doesn't justify it as an illness any more than for instance being easily offended, which also socially impairs.
Just to clear up any misunderstanding here, did any of us say autism/Asperger's is an illness? Remember, it's a psychological disorder, but not illness. There is a difference even if many don't know.

As a comparison, OCD is a psychological disorder, impairment, but not illness or disease. They use brain scans and have found some "common patterns", but haven't found any brain scans which are the same for all with clinical symptoms of OCD. If they did, they'd use brain scans to actually medically diagnose OCD. Does that mean OCD is fake? Does that mean that there aren't those out there which are impaired to the point it's clinical? Remember, everything "psychological is also biological", so eventually they'll always find something for everything. The thing which matters is if it clinically impairs.

I think there's plenty of evidence for those with high functioning autism/Asperger's being impaired in certain areas of communication/social aspects/obsessive interests/repetitions to the point it clinically interferes.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Happy Birthday Albert Einstein! General Discussion 12
Ten Obscure Factoids Concerning Albert Einstein General Discussion 19
Others like Albert Einstein? General Discussion 3
Relativity by Albert Einstein General Physics 9
Einstein, Newton...autistic? General Discussion 1