Albert Einstein: High Functioning Autistic

[Kajahtava]

Aggression is usually defined as "behavior intended to hurt another person" and it's directed.

Am sceptical as that's a fundamental difference between aggression and anger.

If you're aggressive, breaking it hitting any person will ease the hunger for blood. You just need to break some thing or one. However hatred and anger are personal, if one hates a person, enough to see that person dead, killing another person will not just take that away, however when one's aggressive, destroying a bus stop because Liverpool lost a match will suffice.

It's further classified as emotional (doing harm for it's own sake) and instrumental (doing harm in order to obtain advantages) and the type of aggression you manifest is generally a factor in diagnosis.

That classification is completely nonsense, aggression is not an emotion, I think we can all agree that aggression is not some thing nested in the neocortex, aggression is a primal rage.

Hatred however is an emotion and more sophisticated, 'lower animals' have a very limited concept of hatred and those that can hate you, that is, continue when you come back a later time, are often attested to have higher functions such as a memory and able to recognise different individuals as much as altruism. I'd like to see this classification that calls aggression 'emotional', that's nonsense, it's primordial.

Also, aggression really isn't that calculating that people think about doing it for a reason, in fact, people with aggression problems often try to control their temper as they often later regret what they did.

Annoyance (better described as frustration) is a factor which often (but not always) lead to increased possibility to manifest aggressive behavior.

That's true, as I said before, annoyance and aggression are not directed against a specific entity, one is simply annoyed or frustrated or aggressive and will snap at any random person that enters the room. However, when one hates a person or is angry at a person, one will not just let that out on random people, however the four are typically not disjoint but can very well be.

Usually all factors are correlated when a diagnosis is done.

That's a lot of faith into a diagnosis mechanism that is based on the visual evaluation a human being makes and talking to that person. You know of the countless tests that were able to demonstrate just how scaringly psychiatrists are able to diagnose people that have no problem at all with really about any diagnosis just by planting a suggestion right?

I am completely unconvinced that human beings are objective enough to do this, and about all experiments on this see me eye to eye here. I'm not calling psychiatry some mass conspiracy like some people, I am saying that its tool for diagnosis is essentially what the scientific method hoped to eliminate, human biases, psychiatric care is tantamount to visiting your doctor, complaining about a chest pain, and the good sir has a conversation with you, and puts you on chemo for breast cancer without X-ray to see if it's really there.

Not to mention that a lot of diagnoses, especially things like autism or schizoid personality disorder or 'schizotypal personality disorder' (seriously, look this one up, it's amazing) are both too vague and really there being no solid justification for it to be called an 'illness'. Also, the stickiness of these labels is quite dangerous. A lot of professionals^[which?] claim that autism supposedly is a born condition, but how can you test that if you apparently may not diagnose that after some years old I wonder... same with homosexuality, I am not convinced that it's born, acquired, combination, or that you can be 'cured' or you cannot be. Because I really haven't seen any evidence towards one or the either, psychiatry seems to be mainly based on cultural ideas and not really controlled experiments. To sum it up:

A: the diagnostics criteria are too vague and open to interpretation
B: one cannot rely on a human being's senses to objectively judge their applicability

Most of the "extroverts" I know are pretty good at perceiving social cues, and do manifest normal levels of social interaction. In Asperger the ability to carry social interaction is impaired significantly.

I never stated that extroverted people are bad at perceiving social cues, I said that if you're bad at it, and also happen to be extroverted, people have a tendency to not to notice it, two completely different things.

Also, it's more common than you think, allow me to sketch a situation here:

Person A doesn't have a girlfriend, he has a mate B who tries to get him a girlfriend and sets him up for dates and meet nice girls. Now, assume A is introverted, and B extroverted. Since A is introverted, he will not so soon let notice that he doesn't really want all that fuzz and is in no hurry to get a girlfriend for what-ever reason. Most people then perceive B as picking up the social cues correctly by 'helping' his friend, however he, and the people around him, fail to notice the cue that he's not as much helping A as bothering him, which A, because he appreciates the effort, is less prone to clearly state, as A is introverted. Thus the image is drawn from this that A lacks social skills because of his limited success despite B's trying, yet B has them.

Again, I'm not saying that extroverted people lack a perception of social skills, I'm saying that people often don't notice it when people are extroverted. In fact, my hypothesis for sake of argument is that people see social skills as roughly the same as outreaching, walking up to people, trying to help them and starting conversations, irrespective of if it's also done in the right way.

I have noticed though that extroverted people tend to pay less attention to their surroundings and have less of an appreciation for detail than introverted people. Which seems to be the stereotype too of all the people with an appreciation for detail, the mathematician, the realistic painter et cetera, as being quite introverted and ultimately an Einzelgänger.

 

[DanP]

Am sceptical as that's a fundamental difference between aggression and anger.

If you're aggressive, breaking it hitting any person will ease the hunger for blood. You just need to break some thing or one.

What you describe is emotional aggression. It's driven by emotions, by anger in this case, and it has no goals. You snap.

However hatred and anger are personal, if one hates a person, enough to see that person dead, killing another person will not just take that away, however when one's aggressive, destroying a bus stop because Liverpool lost a match will suffice.

Anger and hate are not necessarily personal. You can hate the whole world and have anger towards the whole society, or certain groups.

That classification is completely nonsense, aggression is not an emotion, I think we can all agree that aggression is not some thing nested in the neocortex, aggression is a primal rage.

Aggression is a **behavior**. The **motivations**, however, can be of emotional nature. Emotions are powerful motivators.

Instrumental aggression is goal oriented. You engage in aggressive behavior with a clear goal, to secure something. Instrumental aggression is planed and controlled.

Emotional aggression is uncontrolled and impulsive. You just go postal.

Also, aggression really isn't that calculating that people think about doing it for a reason, in fact, people with aggression problems often try to control their temper as they often later regret what they did.

Emotional aggression is not calculated. It;s impulsive. Instrumental aggression is always goal oriented. It is always calculated. Risk and benefits enter the picture. Most of the humans with aggressive behavior are just falling into the emotional category.

That's true, as I said before, annoyance and aggression are not directed against a specific entity, one is simply annoyed or frustrated or aggressive and will snap at any random person that enters the room.

The random person at which you "snap", is the target of your aggression. You manifest a a directed behavior. In all cases of this nature, where you snap, the aggression is emotional.

You can have instrumental aggression against random targets as well, but you do not "snap". You plan it in order to secure a goal. Random target instrumental aggression is usually used to secure status and establish dominance hierarchies.

 

[Kajahtava]

What you describe is emotional aggression. It's driven by emotions, by anger in this case.

Why? I described a scenario where one would let it out on all things that just cross a path, I'd say that praecludes emotion.

Or let me ask you this: Do you feel that an urge/drift and emotion are the same thing?

Because basically I sort of without realizing worked on this hierarchy of brain functions:

0: urge - things like hunger, thirst, sex drive, strife to stay alive, need to protect oneself and one's children.
1: emotions - things like love, hatred, appreciation for beauty or art
2: reason.

I'd call the scenario I described here on 0, it's an urge to beat things up, in fact a lot of people know at that point that they are going to regret it but can't control themselves anyhow.

Anger and hate are not necessarily personal. You can hate the whole world and have anger towards the whole society, or certain groups.

Absolutely, but that's still some abstract entity, it's still towards a thing, I never said those things should be people, they can be game publishing companies for all sake.

Aggression however is not really with some object in mind.

Aggression is a **behavior**. The **motivations**, however, can be of emotional nature. Emotions are powerful motivators.

And that's exactly my point, psychiatrists' failure to properly see those motivations. My claim is that some one who's screaming or cursing due to what I just called 'aggression' here is completely different than some one who does so out of hatred.

I just called the undirected version aggression, I mean, if a person shouts and screams because of hatred, you have more to work with, you can just call a friend of that person to talk to him or her and ask what's wrong. However, if it's aggression, (or perhaps henceon called 'undirected rage'?) even that friend most likely risks getting a chair thrown at it.

However, psychiatrists have often made no distinction and treated all cases like aggression, restraining people when there was no need, all they needed to do is keep the object of the hatred away and just have a talk with the patient and ask what's wrong.

Instrumental aggression is goal oriented. You engage in aggressive behavior with a clear goal, to secure something. Instrumental aggression is planed and controlled.

Well, we might be talking in different definitions here. Let's just categorize it like this:

We have, directed: which means it's targeted at some entity and only that entity has any thing to fear for the outburst, versus undirected, meaning all that get close have to fear.

And we situational versus permanent. You can still be angry at your best friend right, even though you love him? You can however not hate your best friend, complicated mixed feelings left aside for simplicity's sake.

My observation is that psychiatrists, and most people, fail to observe these differences in behaviour because the external symptoms may be alike to most people. As you already said, you claimed what you call aggression could be caused by multiple different things. You're more oriented at the symptoms, I'm more interested in the cause, the most effective means to combat a problem is to combat the cause after all.

So:

undirected, temporary drift := aggression
undirected, temporary emotion := annoyance (note that with annoyance there isn't really an urge as much as a mood)
directed, temporary emotion := anger
directed, permanent emotion := hatred

Just shortening them down for simplicity's sake. For all I care we call them type I, type II, type III and type IV henceon. Note that not all combinations apply because a drift for instance is never permanent.

Now, my claim is that:

A: type I requires a completely different solution to effectively combat from type III. (For one, one can more effectively reason with a person who suffers from type III than from type I. Type I really has no solution except restraining and letting cool down, type III however can be reasoned with.)

B: psychiatrists (and people in general) have a tendency to not observe the difference and either treat all cases as Type I, or all as Type III, either trying to reason with cases one can't reason with, or restraining people forcibly who really pose no danger but in fact can become Type I due to being restrained.

Also, interesting is that though Type I and Type II always show on the outside, Type III and Type IV needn't show that visibly at all. Concealed (cropped up) hatred and anger is quite possible, however cropped up aggression occurs far less so to nil.

Emotional aggression is uncontrolled and impulsive. You just go postal.

Well, by the hierarchy above, emotion praecludes impulse, impulse is drift-based.

We share impulses and drifts with so called 'lower' animals, however, emotion and reason are only found in 'intelligent' animals that have a developed higher brain.

The random person at which you "snap", is the target of your aggression. You manifest a a directed behavior. In all cases of this nature, where you snap, the aggression is emotional.

I wouldn't call it a target as much as an object, I mean, remove this random person from the room (it flees) another person enters, and the aggressive person will start to just beat the other person up.

It's really not directed at any one, aggression, one just needs 'some one', or in many cases even 'some thing', to beat up and vent steam.

You can have instrumental aggression against random targets as well, but you do not "snap"
You plan it in order to secure a goal. Random instrumental aggression is usually used to secure status and establish dominance hierarchies.

I really think again that we speak in different definitions of aggression, I believe you use 'aggression' as an umbrella term for my Type I, II, III while I keep them distinct as I believe that although they are superficially similar, they have completely different causes.

If you agree, I would like to further keep this discussion to terms of Type I, II, III and IV for clarity's sake, assuming you agree with their distinctive nature.

 

[DanP]

Why? I described a scenario where one would let it out on all things that just cross a path, I'd say that praecludes emotion.

Not necessarily. You see a behavior, but from this picture alone you cannot say the motivations behind it. You can even have a very precise goal to behave aggressively against anyone crossing a certain path.

The main difference between the two types of aggression is whatever it is goal oriented or it is not.

It's really not directed at any one, aggression, one just needs 'some one', or in many cases even 'some thing', to beat up and vent steam.

Since aggression is a behavior, "some one" is the target of aggression.

 

[rhody]

Here is a http://www.ted.com/talks/pawan_sinha_on_how_brains_learn_to_see.html" TED video by Pawan Sinha: Visual Neuroscientist at MIT.

His bio http://www.ted.com/speakers/pawan_sinha.html" :

His presentation is interesting in itself, which I invite you to watch. What most interested me was what he had to say regarding autism at the end.

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.

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.​

This discussion of whether Einstein had or did not have high functioning autism is at best subjective, based on the DSM IV criteria presented above.
Opinions have been expressed for and against, all based on the opinion of the observer with at best second hand information.

As some have commented it is too bad that there isn't a definitive (as good as science can muster at the moment) test or series of tests to diagnose autism with 100% certainty.

Maybe Dr Sinha's research, originally designed to help poor child in India to see will bear more fruit with other breakthroughs in Autism and other neurological processing disorders.

I for one hope that he succeeds.

Rhody...

 

[apeiron]

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.

Thanks Rhody, a good link. Perceptual integration is based on anticipation. And this is the kind of general, fine grain, deficit I was talking about.

 

[rhody]

Thanks Rhody, a good link. Perceptual integration is based on anticipation. And this is the kind of general, fine grain, deficit I was talking about.

Yeah, I know what you mean, I sometimes can be influenced by persuasive subjective arguments of others, both pro and con, and my opinion is what it is, at best subjective.

It is hard to argue with experiments that can be conducted a number of times, and if consistent with peer review oversight and consensus, science can then assign a "best test we have at the moment" for the diagnosis being considered.

Rhody...

 

[Kajahtava]

Not necessarily. You see a behavior, but from this picture alone you cannot say the motivations behind it. You can even have a very precise goal to behave aggressively against anyone crossing a certain path.

The main difference between the two types of aggression is whatever it is goal oriented or it is not.

Might be so, but read this piece above:

Now, my claim is that:

A: type I requires a completely different solution to effectively combat from type III. (For one, one can more effectively reason with a person who suffers from type III than from type I. Type I really has no solution except restraining and letting cool down, type III however can be reasoned with.)

B: psychiatrists (and people in general) have a tendency to not observe the difference and either treat all cases as Type I, or all as Type III, either trying to reason with cases one can't reason with, or restraining people forcibly who really pose no danger but in fact can become Type I due to being restrained.

Also, interesting is that though Type I and Type II always show on the outside, Type III and Type IV needn't show that visibly at all. Concealed (cropped up) hatred and anger is quite possible, however cropped up aggression occurs far less so to nil.

Now, would you agree with A or not? Would you agree that, in your terms, a person that acts aggressively towards only one person, or towards all people and does so either permanently or only due to a temporary rage requires a different solution in each of the four permutations thereof?

And B: would you concede that psychiatrists (and people in general) have a tendency to treat people 'that act aggressively'

- towards all people, and permanently
- towards only one person, and permanently
- towards all people, and momentarily
- towards only one person, and permanently

In the same way.

Since aggression is a behavior, "some one" is the target of aggression.

All right, if in your definition of 'target' it is defined so? Then why do you even talk about directed or not?

In your definition of directed, every action/behaviour is directed, the distinction becomes meaningless.

My definition of directed is quite meaningful, we say it is direction if only a specific entity satisfies the desire, the desire (in this case to beat up) is then said to be directed at that entity. Thereby creating a meaningful distinction.

 

[DanP]

And B: would you concede that psychiatrists (and people in general) have a tendency to treat people 'that act aggressively'

No, I would not.

First of all, you cannot make such a claim without statistical data. You can't expect a claim of this magnitude to be taken seriously on the basis of a "I believe that...". It remains unsubstantiated. And "people in general" do not treat other humans. Clinicians do.

Second , I can tell you that aggression is always treated by clinicians within the context of specific disorders, and types of aggression, targets of aggression (male/female , male/male), developmental stage of subject are considered.

Third, I am not a psychiatrist and so I lack qualification in determining the best methods for treatment of certain disorders. It is highly unlikely that anyone with a truncated , subjective and low level view of clinical psychiatry can make any meaningful contribution to treatment methods.

 

[Kajahtava]

No, I would not.

First of all, you cannot make such a claim without statistical data. You can't expect a claim of this magnitude to be taken seriously on the basis of a "I believe that...". It remains unsubstantiated.

You know you already before placed them all under the banner 'aggression', while I in my first post made a firm distinction between what you call 'motivational aggression' and 'blind aggression' and see them as unrelated, sure you already said that you treat them as the same?

Second , I can tell you that aggression is always treated by clinicians within the context of specific disorders, and types of aggression, targets of aggression (male/female , male/male), developmental stage of subject are considered.

Probably, but that wasn't my point, as I said, that these disorders exist as categories is still a form of naïve realism.

My point was the difference in treatment of 'aggression' directed towards only one person where a patient is calm against other people (what I call hatred) or indiscriminate aggression.

Third, I am not a psychiatrist and so I lack qualification in determining the best methods for treatment of certain disorders. It is highly unlikely that anyone with a truncated , subjective and low level view of clinical psychiatry can make any meaningful contribution to treatment methods.

Really now?

http://www.srmhp.org/0301/labels.html

There has been countless literature and experiments on it, and they all reproducibly establish that 'trained professionals' are not able to overcome the human power of suggestion, training apparently is not enough. This is not an opinion, this is a documented fact, put a sane person with a fake diagnosis such as 'schizophrenic' next to a psychiatrist and that psychiatrist, just like any other person, will see things that confirm that diagnosis, this is a documented behaviour of human beings called 'the power of suggestion', ideally, a trained psychiatrist would be immune to it, but there is thusfar no indication that this is true and a medical education apparently is not stronger than the human mind's ability to warp reality to what it expects / wants to see.

The power of suggestion is as much a scientific fact that your pupil's contract if you shine a light on them. It has been reproducibly documented and confirmed by countless independent experiments. If you take a completely sane person, put it in a room with another person and tell the latter that the former person is diagnosed with for instance autism, that person will see a confirmation in that in things that person would not have seen it if there wasn't planted a suggestion, research into the matter has shown that psychiatrists are not an exception tot this. This is not subjective, this is objective, any objective person reviewing these researches must come to the conclusion that:

- the power of suggestion is real.
- psychiatrists are not an exception to it.

Read the source, there is even a test in it which shows that psychiatrists are 20% more inclined to think about aggression disorders if you suggest the person the transcript is about is black.. There is really no way to deny the fact that in psychiatry A: diagnoses are given based on suggestions. B: diagnoses are sticky, if you have once been given a wrong diagnosis, it stays because of the power of suggestion the psychiatrist is subject to.

Furthermore, psychiatry admits from itself that what it did 20 years back was in fact incorrect treatment and in many cases averse, and 20 years back it did so from 20 years back, and so on and so on. Most likely what they do today is also averse. Psychiatry and psychotherapy is not a science based on controlled conditions and double blind experiments. It is a form of alternative medicine. The treatments they employ for the largest part have not been proven effective in double blinds beyond the placebo effect, by definition, it is alternative medicine that for some quirky reason enjoys legal sanction. The existence of categories like 'autism' or 'schizophrenia' or 'depression' is no more proven than the existence of the types of people in enneagrams.

 

[bassplayer142]

Everyones got a damn disease now-a-days. Hell if I ever went to one of those quacks they would diagnose me with everything possible.

Bunch of bollocks.

You beat me to it. Maybe not in the case of Autism,... but I believe that psychologists have catagorized every type of human PERSONALITY, that everything different from normal is a disorder. Einstein was a genius and most people here would trade a lot to have his ability.

 

[DanP]

You know you already before placed them all under the banner 'aggression', while I in my first post made a firm distinction between what you call 'motivational aggression' and 'blind aggression' and see them as unrelated, sure you already said that you treat them as the same?

You do not give an answer to my statement, you respond a different question . And you use another question as response. What I asked you is statistical data to substantiate your belief on treatment methods. Short of statistical proof, all you have is what you believe to be right.

Second, you did not make any distinction whatsoever between emotional aggression and instrumental aggression, you dismissed this method of categorization altogether as "completely nonsense" (although the distinction is used in the clinical field), and now you come around and pretend you see them unrelated ...

That classification is completely nonsense ..

My point was the difference in treatment of 'aggression' directed towards only one person where a patient is calm against other people (what I call hatred) or indiscriminate aggression.

It is addressed within context.

Really now?

Really. Indeed, no one is immune to cognitive biases. But the issue I raised is different fundamentally.

What makes you think that a person who is:

1. Lacking any training whatsoever (med school or MS in clinical psych st least)
2. Lacking clinical experience
3. Subject to all kinds of cognitive biases as well (unless you consider yourself the only being on the Earth immune to this )

will be better than a trained professional ? He will be not. He will fail miserably at all counts.

Psychiatry field is ever evolving, it might not be perfect, but it;s hardly a field where a untrained person can make any meaningful contribution whatsoever. You need a solid base and clinical experience. Lacking it, and pretend you know better, all you have is just another bias , "unskilled and unaware of it".

 

[DanP]

Everyones got a damn disease now-a-days. Hell if I ever went to one of those quacks they would diagnose me with everything possible.

Actually, you will probably come out clean from a psychiatric evaluation. There are many jobs and classifications where you are required to undergo evaluations, and it's far from being a free for all, assign the disorder, frag fest.

 

[Kajahtava]

You do not give an answer to my statement, you respond a different question . And you use another question as response. What I asked you is statistical data to substantiate your belief on treatment methods. Short of statistical proof, all you have is what you believe to be right.

How can you possibly verify this statistically?

As soon as you put an observer there to verify it, you influence your experiment. You can't verify this statistically. Yeah, it's a personal experience, but a compelling one nonetheless.

Second, you did not make any distinction whatsoever between emotional aggression and instrumental aggression, you dismissed this method of categorization altogether as "completely nonsense" (although the distinction is used in the clinical field), and now you come around and pretend you see them unrelated ...

Nope, I said I make a distinction between my types I, II, III, and IV. (which you flat out ignored by the way, just as the majority of my post, you reply to one or two paragraphs of nine every time.)

It is addressed within context.

What is this supposed to mean?

Really. Indeed, no one is immune to cognitive biases. But the issue I raised is different fundamentally.

Which isn't mine issue with psychiatry in the first post I made.

In the first post I made the issue that psychiatry is prone to naïve realism. It has a tendency to categorize things based on that they appear similar to human beings. Rather than categorize things that have the same cause together.

What makes you think that a person who is:

1. Lacking any training whatsoever (med school or MS in clinical psych st least)
2. Lacking clinical experience
3. Subject to all kinds of cognitive biases as well (unless you consider yourself the only being on the Earth immune to this )

will be better than a trained professional ? He will be not. He will fail miserably at all counts.

As far as case 1 goes: This is far from true if the person in quaestion is trained in alternative science. Psychiatry is a form of alternative science. And just as a random person can be better at medicine than a homoeopath, so can a random person be better than a psychiatrist.

Your assume that what they teach you at psych school is also true, this is very much debatable.

For instance:

The World Health Organization conducted two long-term follow-up studies involving more than 2,000 people suffering from schizophrenia in different countries. These studies found patients have much better long-term outcomes in developing countries (India, Colombia and Nigeria) than in developed countries (USA, UK, Ireland, Denmark, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Japan, and Russia), despite the fact antipsychotic drugs are typically not widely available in poorer countries, raising questions about the effectiveness of such drug-based treatments.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11087016

Also, read the other source I gave you.

There are serious indications that psychiatric treatment is counter-effective and that no treatment is superior to psychiatric treatment in many conditions including schizophrenia, Asperger's syndrome and depression. I restate that there is no hard evidence to support that psychiatry is any thing more than alternative medicine. It's quackery, there exists no more proof for the existence of autism than for meridian lines.

As far as case 2 goes: I have rather extensive experience in therapy, nothing accordingly formal protocols (Which I believe should always be bent or broken when warranted) But I have in the past helped people overcome to some extend things like failure anxiety, social phobia and obsessive compulsions and all those people claimed I did as hell a better job as their therapist. My strategy usually, but not always, consists of asking people the quaestions that makes them think about the issue such that they figure out their own solution. I believe that giving advice is a fundamentally flawed notion to help people, for when people give advice, they don't give the advice for what's best to do for the person they give advice to, but rather what's best for themselves were they in that person's shoes. The best way is to try to give people an as complete as possible picture of the situation so that they can choose themselves with their own desires. I also believe that in most cases the best way to let people overcome phobiae and anxieties is to let them realize for themselves what part they are actually afraid of, and then remove it. People are never afraid of 'social interaction', they are afraid of a certain part of it that can usually be removed without compromising the social interaction. I've seen situations were the answer to all the problems was as simple as simply taking a step backward when talking or having conversations mainly by asking quaestions instead of telling things.

As far as 3 goes, I am not immune to cognitive biases no, but less susceptible than most people. I for instance am immune to most optical illusions, which are powers of suggestion:

Why is the top line longer to the mind? Because that's what the mind expects.

Psychiatry field is ever evolving

No, it's changing.

Unlike physics, in psychiatry, old theories are not special cases of new theories. They contradict them, in physics and other proper sciences, the new theories are the old one's, but more praecise, in psychiatry, a new theory often outright contradicts an older theory instead of introducing a new variable to it. And in fact, this can happen in a cycle. In 1950, they thought homosexuality could be cured. In the 1980's, the search for the 'gay gene' was hot, and they all thought one was born with it. Now, more and more specialists are again turning open to the idea that homosexuality is indeed for a deal acquirable and at least subject to culture. (IT IS SPARTAAAA)

Same with autism, in the 1960's, it was 'childhood schizophrenia', then they were firm you were born with it, then they started to grow back to the idea that it had a nurture component, and now a lot of them change their opinion back to the first in some way as more and more seem to believe that it has connexion to schizophrenia.

Psychiatry doesn't evolve or improve, it changes, for better or worse. And it's mostly subject to the culture of the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania

?

As homosexuality became more accepted, people stopped classing it as illness, as gender roles started to fade in the west, professionals started to see it as more fluid, and even giving rise to such labels as 'omnisexuality'.

it might not be perfect, but it;s hardly a field where a untrained person can make any meaningful contribution whatsoever.

A contribution to psychiatry is the same as a contribution to homoeopathy or acupuncture, the discipline has no objective standard to verify correctness, again, it's alternative medicine.

You need a solid base and clinical experience. Lacking it, and pretend you know better, all you have is just another bias , "unskilled and unaware of it".

Oh, I would not contest that I know less of psychiatry than the average psychiatrist, I would also not contest that I know less of homoeopathy than the average homoeopath.

I do however that for both:
- The evidence to their effect is vague to interpret, inconclusive and does not result from controlled, double blind experiments.
- Assume they are effective, how exactly they are effective is still unknown.

I'm not claiming to contribute to psychiatry, I'm claiming the practice is ineffective altogether, my criticism on it is the same as the criticism most people have on astrology or homoeopathy.

Now however: I would like to see from you any sources that via controlled scientific experiments verify:
- The existence of autism (the proof that there is a clear, not open to interpretation neurological difference between people we class as 'autistic', or 'not autistic')
- If it exist, the ability of some one who has studied psychiatry to correctly identify this (double blind research, we take a sample group of people who have never been diagnosed, do the brain scan, put the results in an envelope and tell no one. And put this group to a group of psychiatrists and see if they with at least 95% accuracy can pick those out that have been scanned positively, without telling them how much have been scanned positively, if possible, also set up an experiment were all subjects have been scanned negatively)
- The proof of the effect of psychiatry treatment for autism if autism exists, take a group of people who have been scanned positive, send half of them to trained psychiatrists, send the other half to actors told to do as if they are trained psychiatrists, and see if the neurological state can be reduced beyond the placebo effect in the group sent to trained psychiatrists that do not receive placebo medications.

If you cannot produce these results, I would like to ask you why you think that without these results, psychiatry (at least that dealing with autism) is not a form of alternative medicine / quackery.

You beat me to it. Maybe not in the case of Autism,... but I believe that psychologists have catagorized every type of human PERSONALITY, that everything different from normal is a disorder. Einstein was a genius and most people here would trade a lot to have his ability.

He wasn't thaaat smart, he's a biiit overrated, certainly not worth the popular appeal of the greatest genius of all times.

It's also so that the more practical implication your work has, the more the populus is going to class you as brilliant. Supposedly the three greatest mathematicians are Newton, Gaus, and Euler, the first divided by zero, and none of those did any pure/foundational maths.

But it's probably also a thing for aspies to feel special about themselves I guess.

 

[DanP]

As far as 3 goes, I am not immune to cognitive biases no, but less susceptible than most people. I for instance am immune to most optical illusions, which are powers of suggestion:

Have you heard of Lake Wobegon, the place where everybody is better than average ?

 

[Kajahtava]

Way to ignore my entire post and only pick out the ONE point that's the easiest to attack which is also largely irrelevant to my point that psychiatry is alternative science. Give meh those sources.

But to show myself the better man and reply to your one point again:

Knowing that I'm immune to most optical illusions is easy to verify for me, as I don't get them and as a child while other people were amused by them I didn't get them, I just got those quaestions like 'which line is longer?', and I got a drawer and they said 'no, on your eyes', and I said 'that's a tough one, they're virtually the same length, I need a drawer.'

I'm however only immune to length based optical illusions, not co colour based optical illusions

 

[DanP]

Way to ignore my entire post and only pick out the ONE point that's the easiest to attack which is also largely irrelevant to my point that psychiatry is alternative science. Give meh those sources.

It is not I who tries to change the staus quo, so I really do not need to give you sources proving anything. Psychiatry is a recognized medical sciences specialization. The fact that you do not recognize it doesn't change the fact that medical sciences do recognize it as a valid field.

It's quackery, there exists no more proof for the existence of autism than for meridian lines.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it's a duck.

If one manifests severely impaired social interaction , impaired communication skills and repetitive behaviors , we call the the phenomena "Autism".

Now you can pretend that no person on the globe fall into the criteria above, and demand all kind of proofs, but it won't change the reality that there exist humans affected by it.

 

[Kajahtava]

It is not I who tries to change the staus quo, so I really do not need to give you sources proving anything. Psychiatry is a recognized medical sciences specialization. The fact that you do not recognize it doesn't change the fact that medical sciences do recognize it as a valid field.

Bollocks, you're using an argument to authority, and psychiatry is not that recognised as you think, antipsychiatry is quite a large movement.

And what of it? even if every person in the world recognised the Earth to be flat, it's still not true.

I have given countless sources already which demonstrate the ineffectiveness and counter-effectiveness of psychiatry. (which you didn't reply to and quite possibly never read)

Psychiatry is recognised within psychiatry, that an alternative discipline of medicine is recognised within it is no new thing.

If you believe in psychiatry because of this recognition (which is overstated) without having read any research to back it up, you're guilty of an argument to authority.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it's a duck.

So this is what you call science? That explains a lot...

If one manifests severely impaired social interaction , impaired communication skills and repetitive behaviors , we call the the phenomena "Autism".

No we don't, the diagnostics criteria are a lot more complex. What you describe here can also fall under, but not exclusively:

- Obsessive compulsive disorder
- tics
- amnesia / alzheimer

Have you ever read the diagnostics criteria? I have, I have a copy of DSM-IV right here, in fact, I stole it from a psychiatrist, in fact, she found out that I did and said I could keep it.

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

As you can see they are remarkably more complex and over to interpretation than you sketched them.

I've come to notice that the people that have faith in psychiatry are often wholly ignorant about how it works and it's lax standards on verifiability and controlled experiments and basically seem to think it's probably scientific because it's taught at universities, most of them have never read DSM-IV. Go read it, you will be amazed by how extremely vague the diagnostics criteria are and how the methodology used in it completely eschews controlled conditions, falsifiability, blinds and so on. (I'm not talking about pharmacology, that's another field).

Same applies to things like sociology and evolutionary psychology by the way.

Now you can pretend that no person on the globe fall into the criteria above, and demand all kind of proofs, but it won't change the reality that there exist humans affected by it.

That's not proven either, in fact, in many cases it seems to be that the problem is what you make of it. As soon as you think there's a problem, the power of suggestion does the rest.

Let's assume that Einstein had autism hmm? He managed quite okay didn't he? If he was born today maybe he would be diagnosed with it, get to all sorts of treatments and not being able to study any more because of them. I talked with a psychotherapist while I studied for some problems with depression, missed whole lectures because of that and it never helped, it was my mother's idea, not mine, I never had any significant problems in life and I managed, then they suddenly diagnosed me with depression and gave me drugs, I first took them for a while, I practically fell asleep due to them, then stopped taking them outside their knowledge, and I managed a lot better, yeah, I felt worse, but I had energy, I could do stuff and actually feel emotion. Yeah, drugs cure depression, but the side effects just aren't worth it in a lot of cases. But the most awkward thing was that I didn't tell them, and then my dosage was increased, but I didn't take them any more, for a year already, and then they said 'I can really see you're doing better now.' after that. They were A: not capable of noticing that I stopped taking them. B: after they thought my dosage increased their own bloody placebo forced them to see things were getting better. They later on found out and told me that I should take them because I was a suicidal time bomb. I NEVER mentioned suicide to them, and no one ever placed me into that context before I got that diagnosis, I refused and said that I hadn't taken them for more than a year and they couldn't notice and even said I improved when my dosage was 'increased'. Then I suddenly was diagnosed schizophrenia because I was irrational as I refused to take those drugs, I could cite all the researches I wanted into documented side effects, I could pull the invincible argument that they didn't even notice that I didn't take them. It didn't matter, they had the title M.D. behind their name, they were right ex se they needed no argument and gave none, I studied physics and mathematics at that point, my knowledge of proper scientific methodology far exceeded theirs, in fact, they admitted that, but still they proceeded to dogmatically say I needed drugs.

Then came the ultimatum, I would take them, or I would be forced into an institute because I'm a danger to myself (what?), they can't force you to take them, but they can force you to go to an institute if you don't take them, and typically only let you go out once you take them. I was lucky though, when they put me there, I asked so many quaestions about procedures and how things were done (and taped this beyond their notice with my MP3 player) that they failed to answer a lot of my quaestions which I legally had a right to know. I eventually was in that room, they told me, 'you can go out of it as soon as you take this drug', I said back 'Why can I go out then? The incubation period of this drug is two weeks, it would take two weeks before I'm not 'a danger to myself' any more? Why can I go out now then, and not in two weeks?', they sighed and left, but I TAPED it god bless. I was able to secure a release by threatening lawsuits after reading the legal documents I found out I could get them behind bars for five years if it came to it. Then I'm suddenly no longer a danger to myself?

I haven't begun studying after that, I ended up far, far worse than before this whole **** began, it just started with some talks to a councillor, ended with being institutionalized.

secondly: Your arguments also assume that psychiatrists follow legal protocols in general, well, they don't. Once you're working with insane people it's quite tempting to break them as no one can prove a thing as they're insane any-way?

thirdly and most importantly: even if these conditions exist, and even if some of them are quite threatening, that is still not a guarantee that psychiatry has the capabilities to solve. As I said, there has been NO conclusive evidence to support the idea that psychiatry is effective. And it wouldn't be the first time in human history that the populace at large believed in some big hoax. I take it you will concede that psychiatry of 1920 destroyed more than that it cured. But people believed in it then didn't they? It was a 'recognised discipline back then?' wasn't it? Even though no shred of evidence existed to back it up back then hmm? People have at all times clamped hopefully unto alternative medicine which simply either didn't work, or even worked counter-effectively. The status quo has more often been wrong than correct, appealing to it is not an argument.

 

[DanP]

Bollocks, you're using an argument to authority, and psychiatry is not that recognised as you think, antipsychiatry is quite a large movement.

And what of it? even if every person in the world recognised the Earth to be flat, it's still not true.

I have given countless sources already which demonstrate the ineffectiveness and counter-effectiveness of psychiatry. (which you didn't reply to and quite possibly never read)

Nothing of what you posted demonstrates ineffectiveness of psychiatry. You and I seem also to have very different opinions on meaning of "countless" .

I didnt made any appeal to authority, I just informed you that you want to change the status quo, so you must present solid evidence.

No we don't, the diagnostics criteria are a lot more complex. What you describe here can also fall under, but not exclusively:

- Obsessive compulsive disorder
- tics
- amnesia / alzheimer

You forget correlation. Anyway, I find this discussion is eating too much of my time so I will relinquish from the floor.

 

[Kajahtava]

Nothing of what you posted demonstrates ineffectiveness of psychiatry. You and I seem also to have very different opinions on meaning of "countless" .

I didnt made any appeal to authority, I just informed you that you want to change the status quo, so you must present solid evidence.

Have you read the sources I linked?

Some of them were quite long, and your reaction time is quite high.

Also, that's nonsense, you assume the status quo is always right. I have given a variety of sources which make the validity of psychiatry dubious. You have not given a single source which solidifies as any thing more than alternative medicine (that it 's the status quo means you don't need to give it is absurd, there have been countless examples of unproven alternative medicine been status quo)

You forget correlation. Anyway, I find this discussion is eating too much of my time so I will relinquish from the floor.

I forget correlation, what?

 

[physicsdude30]

My cousin is a neuroscientist, and he couldn't find it. Also, I've searched, it's not that hard to search for it, I'm quite capable of understanding most neuroscience papers. There hasn't been any evidence for that supposedly aspies have different brains. There are some parallels, but other aspies lack it altogether.

Of course, once whether you're an aspie or not depends on the 'professional opinion' of some one having spent 9 years learning a pseudoscience that diagnoses people based on conversations rather than X-rays it's quite easy to say that those were never truly aspies to begin with. In fact, whether or not asperger is caused by a neurological state, be it one or many cannot be answer at the moment because there is no hard definition of asperger to begin with.

Something I find interesting, everyone will say Down's Syndrome is real because it's obvious. Then holding onto that, there are tests to see how good you are at reading social situations, describing what another's intents are, etc. As far as what you can make measureable, high functioning autistic children generally score worse than those with Down's Syndrome on these tests, indicating that they lag in this area of development and something beyond any regular cognition skills. Although you can't get into their heads to see if there's a medical condition, you can make it measureable that in general they're worse than Down's Syndrome at these skills. "Psychological disorder" isn't the same thing as condition, but rather means impairment. Check this out:

In picture sequence tests for young children, the autistic children did better at putting pictures in order for object mechanical cause-effect skills. However, they did worse than Down's Syndrome children for putting pictures in order requiring "Understanding Intentions". There were also control questions to guarantee the children were comprehending the "details" to make sure it was something rather dealing with "putting things together".

Another look at that same data:

Then I also find it very interesting how there was a study where researchers had four years olds listen to a story. In the story a character brought something into the room and left. Someone else then moved the object. The original character came back.

The four year olds had to guess where the character would look to find it. Most of the Down's Syndrome and normal developing children guessed correctly that the main character would look in the original place since the character didn't know that it was moved. However, most of the autistic children couldn't figure this out and guessed wrongly that the character would look in the place that "it was really moved to", although the character from the story didn't actually know this happened because because of being in a different room:

 

[ViewsofMars]

Nowhere in the American Museum of Natural History does it suggest to me that Albert Einstein was autistic. "Look deep, deep into nature and then you will understand nature better." -Albert Einstein
Einstein's imagination is not a precursor to one having autism.

Einstein's Revolution
He was daring, wildly ingenious, passionately curious. He saw a beam of light and imagined riding it; he looked up at the sky and envisioned that space-time was curved. Albert Einstein reinterpreted the inner workings of nature, the very essence of light, time, energy and gravity. His insights fundamentally changed the way we look at the universe—and made him the most famous scientist of the 20th century. . .
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/revolution/index.php

Nobel Laureate John Nash was autistic and later became a schizophrenic . Most children today that have autism are on medication.

 

[Kajahtava]

Something I find interesting, everyone will say Down's Syndrome is real because it's obvious. Then holding onto that, there are tests to see how good you are at reading social situations, describing what another's intents are, etc. As far as what you can make measureable, high functioning autistic children generally score worse than those with Down's Syndrome on these tests, indicating that they lag in this area of development and something beyond any regular cognition skills.

Well, I'd call down more objective because it can be more or less objectively verified, if some one acts retarded, does retarded, looks typical, but does not have a triplet there. It's not down.

The interesting thing I noticed though, is that all those tests you find on the internet always say 'Don't substitute this for the opinion of a professional.', buuut, I'd reckon, indeed, I would dear to place a substantial amount of money on it. That those tests are far more reproducible that the opinion of a psychiatrist.

Let the same person make two different of those tests, and send the same person to two different psychiatrists, both unaware of that it's also going to another (went in one case of course), and my guess is that those tests are waaaay more similar in their evaluation than the psychiatrists.

Also, if IQ is tested with tests, why not autism? Strangely, the IQ test hard number overrule the opinion of a psychiatrist if you're smart or stupid, but not with autism tests, which are about as shaky, but less shaky than the opinion of a professional.

Although you can't get into their heads to see if there's a medical condition, you can make it measureable that in general they're worse than Down's Syndrome at these skills. "Psychological disorder" isn't the same thing as condition, but rather means impairment. Check this out:

In picture sequence tests for young children, the autistic children did better at putting pictures in order for object mechanical cause-effect skills. However, they did worse than Down's Syndrome children for putting pictures in order requiring "Understanding Intentions". There were also control questions to guarantee the children were comprehending the "details" to make sure it was something rather dealing with "putting things together".

Well, you're going to be hard pressed to convince me of this, I had asperger's, it was later found a misdiagnosis, I'm about all things not that aspies are except for a fixation to 'small details' and an obsession with paedantry and praecision (hence the ae spelling) but I tend to focus on what people intend to say with their words, not what they literally mean, am for breaking all rules when they do not serve their purpose, I never make any tight planning am without any principles, and more of that. But how did I get this diagnosis that was taken away six years later and stuck? Well, I'm not completely sure but I think it was this decisive moment I only found out later:

Imagine an eight year old child, school goes bad, no motivation, tells the teacher he's unconvinced that 1+1=2 by the example of two apples, because one of the apples could have gained extra mass by placing them together, thus 1+1 could actually be 2.000000000000001 without people seeing it. IQ tests show high intelligence, but he gets crap marks and has a tendency to sit under the table, instead of above it and simply asks 'Why?' if he's supposed to do his work on his chair. Yeah, you got yourself a 'problem child', all right. 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? It's just too obvious? So, my only explanation to why this could even take place is that the first person stole the toy from the second, in the chase the first person needed to hide it, so he did in that room and the second caught up with him just as he exited the room again, he said 'I don't have it', the second says 'Oh yeah, I'm going to check in that room, wait here.', he enters, he sees the toy, but he knows he can't just take it out without the other stealing it again, so he displaces it, hoping to be able to pick it up later. He leaves, and says 'Yeah, you really didn't have it.', hoping to drive the other insane that when he comes back and checks, it's really gone. But the first's not stupid, he's up to his plan... so, he checks the other cushion.

I later found out what this test was all about, long after I had lost this diagnosis, I think that was the faithful moment they decide I couldn't live in another's shoes. The evaluator never even asked 'Why do you think that?', he just asked a binary 'first cushion' or 'second', I wanted to say 'He checks them both, and the entire room.', but that wasn't one of the options. So I worked with what I was told, and went for the bluff, but not the double bluff.

And as we all know, labels are sticky, I was treated for Asperger for years and years, six or five, I went to social classes which told me things I already knew, basic ****. The obvious reason why I didn't get along with my classmates and didn't make contact was because I didn't like them, I'm particular about people, I observe them first, then maybe approach them. I don't like most people, that says nothing about my social skills. Despite the obvious signals, I comforted my mother when her boyfriend died when I was eleven, same for my grandmother, instead of then seeing that the diagnosis was wrong, they said 'even though he has Asperger, amazing how good he can listen, being able to overcome his disorder.', WHAT? if not being able to be a good listener is a requirement to being Asperger, then I simply don't have that condition if I'm a good listener and comfort people well. It took until I was 14 for one psychologist to think outside the box and quaestion the diagnosis and let me read some facial expressions, voilla, scored 34/36 correct, most people do 22, most aspies 8 apparently...

But that aside, I'm rambling my hatred to this discipline off, the bottom line is that after this, I don't really believe these tests to be full proof any more. but, for sake of argument let's say they are.

Another look at that same data:

Then I also find it very interesting how there was a study where researchers had four years olds listen to a story. In the story a character brought something into the room and left. Someone else then moved the object. The original character came back.

The four year olds had to guess where the character would look to find it. Most of the Down's Syndrome and normal developing children guessed correctly that the main character would look in the original place since the character didn't know that it was moved. However, most of the autistic children couldn't figure this out and guessed wrongly that the character would look in the place that "it was really moved to", although the character from the story didn't actually know this happened because because of being in a different room:

OMFG, that is it, that's the test I did. That's the one.

SEE, SEE, that can happen? I was just there, I didn't know what kind of situation could require that, so I had to gamble. It was this very test.

So, I hope you now see that these tests are ultimately nonsense. They didn't ask why I thought he would look there to begin with, he just scribbled it down, next quaestion.

I think the main hazard with disorders is this:

A: they don't exist, obviously, it's hard to deny that they're just a group of symptoms put together by convention with no hard link between them.
B: psychiatrists tend to assume that if you're a 'problem child', as in 'things don't go that well at school', there is a diagnosis, they have to put you into one. Well, those symptoms are just there for convention, so a lot of people aren't going to fit in one, but they'll make up interpretations to make you fit, believe me. Not liking a film because it was just a crap film suddenly becomes being afraid of social situations and not liking the crowdedness of the cinema.

Now let's say a person x has some traits of autism, he has an obsession with what others would find 'small details', he talks in a flat monotonous voice (though has a quirky ability of being able to copy the exact intonation of about any person he met and fool people over the phone), he has some qualities of depression, he sleeps little, has little ambitions or motivations, shows apathy when insulted, he has some qualities of paranoid schizophrenia, a running commentary, but no hallucinations, he has some qualities of schizioid personality disorder, he's indifferent to being praised or insulted and tends to work alone.

So, where are you going to put him ehh? 'He' has thus far had asperger, McDD, major depression, schizophrenia, schizotypical, schizoaffectiveness, bipolar depression, depending on which psychiatrist you speak with. And 'he' knows a lot more people that went through the same crap. I know this girl, apparently officially she has a form of autism, she as no inability whatsoever to read people's emotions, she's just very afraid to speak up loudly and rarely approaches people due to some anxiety. She's also afraid to make claims. If you ask her a quaestion, she always says 'I don't know', she will only give an answer if she's completely certain; also if you ask quaestions about emotions. She's just what some people would call 'lacking confidence'. I know tonnes more of people that have gotten all kinds of stupid diagnosis because of the psychiatrists inability to see the pattern. Yeah, if person says 'I don't know', on a facial expression, it might be autism, but look further and you see the same person says 'I don't know' on virtually all quaestions, then you know you're with a different thing.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Hi I'd like to make it very clear to our readers that the topic is about Albert Einstein. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting Albert Einstein was autistic. I gave a reference earlier stating such.

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

 

[DanP]

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]

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]

DanP, I am an adult

I don't think anyone here contested the fact you are an adult.

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 don't overstate their importance, and ask others to refrain from posting so young humans see your "evidence".

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]

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]

Here is some hopeful research being done to diagnose autism, (without applying DSM IV criteria) and then treat it.

http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=5146301"

(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 https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=387517&page=2" 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 http://www.ted.com/talks/pawan_sinha_on_how_brains_learn_to_see.html" 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]

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.