Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 3

message: From the article: There has been an explosion worldwide in reported cases of autism over the last ten years. In the last decade, the population of the United States has increased by 13%. There has been an increase in non-autism-related disabilities of 16%. The increase in autism diagnoses is 173%.
However, the accompanying chart seems to suggest numbers that are a lot larger. How come? Junes 07:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great catch!  Those statistics are based on the twenty-first report to congress by the U.S. department of education (which was probably in one of the references).  Anyway, I updated the passage with newer numbers and clarified the source of statistics in the image --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a little confusing and would be much improved by replacing it with data that simply shows the number of diagnosed cases per year.  Tempshill 16:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I can do that in the image - would you suggest doing the same in the article or stating the percentage of what the image shows in the article?  --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I think I did a decent job this time - now I'm using a numerically-based image and I just reworded the first paragraph to not use statistics... --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Increase in autism

message: First of all, forgive me if my edit is not up to usual Wikipedia standards, as I am a complete newcomer and have only just created an account! However, I was compelled to add to the talk discussion on this article. Under the section on "Brain Trauma", there is no mention of Dr Patricia Rodier and her work on the connections between the microstructures (and deviations from the norm thereof) of the brain stem and autistic spectrum conditions. Her work was covered in great detail in an article in Scientific American (issue dated January 2000), said article having been made public domain: the article is called The Early Origins Of Autism (click link to be taken to the article, and note that the text formatting on that page is not conducive to easy reading!). I have been in touch recently with Dr Rodier, and from her correspondence was motivated to contact Siemens Medical with respect to the possibility that MRI scanners may have the necessary resolution to home in on these brain structure changes as a diagnostic tool. Siemens Medical kindly sent me (via snail mail) a huge sheaf of documentation covering their MRI scanner systems, and scanner technology is, according to this documentation, approaching the resolution needed for such an application. I would consider it appropriate to add references to Dr Rodier and her work in this article (at the moment my editing skills are insufficient for me to undertake this task) and so if there is anyone associated with this page who could perform the requisite editing while maintaining the high standard of the article, I would be grateful for their time and effort in this endeavour.
The article expands upon the brain stem changes and couples them to HOX genes, said coupling having been demonstrated experimentally in the laboratory using transgenic mice. Again, an addition to the article mentioning this would be welcome.
As for my own compelling interest in this topic - I was diagnosed in late adult life with an autistic spectrum condition. As can be seen from the above, it need not necessarily constitute a cognitive impairment! Calilasseia 13:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr Patricia Rodier, And Her Research Into Brain Stem/HOX Gene Links

message: Is the inclusion of Kim Peek appropriate in this article?  As the Kim Peek article says, "Kim Peek was born with macrocephaly and missing corpus callosum."  This is not autism.  Or, rather, he may be autistic, too, but these other problems are not problems of autistics.  And his picture is on the front page of Wikipedia in the context of the autism article.  Tempshill 17:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the picture choice was unfortunate (I thought the temple gradin one or one of the others would get picked).  Also, I'm fairly sure that Peek is not behaviourally autistic either... which makes it even more peculiar. IIRC the Rain Main movie took Kim Peek as an example and modified it to be an autistic savant, thus the confusion (I'm not sure who modified the caption to read an autistic savant but I really do not believe its accurate...). --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I fixed the factual error in the image caption --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the source that Kim Peek was (impliedly) the chief inspiration for Rainman? I attended a discussion led by Dr. Rimland several years ago, in which he said that his own son was a major model for Dustin Hoffman in portraying Raymond. Dr. Rimland said that his son's first reaction to meeting Hoffman in person was to tell him "You look older than your picture." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll source that too I guess --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim Peek appropriateness? 

message: Would it be more correct to say "Persons with Autism" rather than "Autistics" ? I remember when I worked at a tutoring center for children with Down's, Tourette's, Autism, we had to say "Children with Autism" and such (As the main teacher would say: "They're people first, Autism is part of who they are.")
Just a question :) User:Kvidell
::Actually, "persons with autism" is offensive to autistics. It would be like saying "persons with deafness" or "persons with homosexuality"  or "persons with left-handedness". --Jose
*Autism is sort of an exception to the rule, as autistics is a more well-known term. For example, even on Asperger's syndrome you'd say "People with Asperger's syndrome", but the term autistics is so well known and is a dictionary term in a lot of dictionaries that it is generally more expected to say autistic rather than "People with autism". --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I understand it: Some autistic people prefer to be called "autistics" or "autistic people" because person-with language is used for illnesses (a person with AIDS, for instance.) It gives the impression that the autism is something that can be removed. --Bluejay Young 18:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Certainly, the parents prefer "child with autism". They want to believe that the child exists separately from his or her neurology. I'm not saying that what the parents want doesn't matter, but they have to face reality sooner or later. --Bluejay Young 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't generalize too much -- I'm a parent of a person on the spectrum, and my wife and I strongly prefer the "autistic person" form (as does our offspring), and do many other parents we are in touch with through various blogs and forums. -- DaveSeidel 00:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it comes down to choice. I've been diagnosed with autism since 1970 and I use both forms. Among autistics, that's what I say and how I think of myself but when I talk to professionals and parents I usually use the 'person with' form so that people don't get hung up by terminology but listen to what I have to say. (Lindsay Weekes, 24 September 2005)
OK - I did a bit of cleanup on this subject and explained it in the text also. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the reason Asperger's Syndrome is treated differently is because it's two words.  There are some people who feel the terms "aspergian" or "aspergic" are appropriate, however many others feel that AS is just another flavour of autism and any new term would be redundant.  I personally describe myself using the terms "I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome" and therefore "I am autistic" or "I am an Aspie".  I almost never say "I have AS".  If anything, it has me. :-/ 24.87.206.79 14:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary distinction in this case is not the word itself but rather wether one uses "am"/"is" or "have" when refering to Autism/Aspergers. Am and is imply a personality (a concept I agree with being an Aspie) where as have impyls a disease that can be cured. I really quite like User:24.87.206.79 sentiment that AS has me. Symmetric Chaos 12:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word Choice? 

message: Woa, woa, woa! Where the heck is the section on Facilitated communication? this was a huge "leap" in communication for those with autism; schools were set up, classes trained, methods implemented. However in double blind studies years later proved it completely bunk. This isn't a moot issue for autism, this was a Big Deal(tm). There should be something on it in here.  JoeSmack (talk) 23:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Well then, this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia "anyone can edit," soooo.... -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be sure to include the fact that facilitated communication does work for a very small number of autistics, as an intro to doing their own typing. The way it works in real life is not very similar to the way it was touted. It was originally developed as a way of helping spastics to type. There are probably some online autistics who can explain how it's used. --Bluejay Young 18:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: In fact, I have more to say about FC now that I know someone I trust in my circle of internet acquaintances is using it. If you want to know about valid and legitimate use of FC, go to Ballastexistenz. She not only explains it, but she also explains how some autistic people really can do one-fingered typing without looking at the keyboard. It is a skill, similar to standard touch typing. --Bluejay Young 23:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And if you want to watch her do it, go here: http://www.gettingthetruthout.org/pagee001.html 
I think her current address is ballastexistenz at autistics dot org if you have any questions. --Bluejay Young 01:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facilitated communication 

message: As discussed it as too little to do with the article to say... for completeness here it is along with the source for the rain man claim...
#  
:I've reverted for the reasons I just stated above - Kim Peek *is* the most famous autistic person. It clearly belongs in the article. →Raul654 00:01, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
::Again, I ask: in whose estimation? Peek is perhaps the most notable example of what is called "autistic savantism," though that was a sort of PC modification of the prior term, which was "idiot savant." But savantism is exceedingly rare in autism, though it has the most interest among the great unwashed masses. Rainman is a very good movie concerning autism, but in real world terms, Temple Grandin is an actual autistic, was perhaps the first to be able to give insight into autism from the POV of one with a severe case of the disorder. She helped raise autistics from the status of freak-show curiosity, specifically using her autistic skills to create revolutionary (and widely used) methods for the human treatment of food animals. Fame by Hollywood should not be encouraged. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim Peek picture removed 

message: "Very few physicians today solely use the DSM-IV criteria for determining a diagnosis of autism, which are based on the absence or delay of certain developmental milestones. Many physicians instead use an alternate means (or a combination thereof) to more accurately determine a diagnosis."
"Physicians" ought to be changed to "clinicians" in both cases, yes?  Although physicians may at times initially earmark a kid for diagnosis, diagnosing is done by clinical psychologists, not general medical doctors.  I've never seen a doctor administer a kid an ADOS at a yearly checkup.
:Possibly.  Much of that sentence pair is redundant, if there are other means in use then listing them is useful, in whcih case there would need to be a reason to leave the bit about what physicians or clinicians do _not_ do in.  For the moment, I boiled down teh current version a bit - "to establish a diagnosis of" is indistinguishable in meaning from "to diagnose" for instance.  -->"Few clinicians today use only the DSM-IV criteria, which are based on the absence or delay of certain developmental milestones, to diagnose autism. "  TUrning that into  "Clinicians today use ..... as well as the DSM-IV..." seems likely to be a further improvement, to me.  Should diagnostic criteria be in the History section? Midgley 15:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: As of 2003, some psychiatric professionals propose redefining Asperger's autism along with some other autistic spectrum conditions and renaming them to "Crypto Sensitivity Syndrome" . However, this is somewhat controversial with people, as some believe there are faults in the proposal such as associating fungus in the nails with the syndrome, while many more question the need for a new diagnosis when there are already existing ones  .
Are there any more concrete or reputable references for the alleged redefinition of certain autistic spectrum disorders as falling under 'crypto sensitivity syndrome?' A PubMed search turns up nothing referring to such a syndrome, and the only references found via Google are to two webpages published by laypeople, both of whom cite essentially the same relatively unprofessionally written document, and neither of whom provides any reference whatsoever to any discussion within the actual psychiatric community.
Here are the only two real references I could locate; all other mentions on the web refer to one of these two pages.
http://www.backlash.com/content/disab/2003/rvm1203.html
http://web.syr.edu/~rjkopp/data/cryptose.html
I strongly believe references to this 'syndrome' should be removed from the Wikipedia entry on autism unless further verification can be provided. I've removed it for now.
:Sounds fair. I kept it in the article because it was already there, although I admit I had quite a bit of trouble finding references for it. I went ahead and removed the footnotes referenced for it also Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent writeup on the adults-w-autism part, thanks! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I was around, years ago (late '90s), right around when this "cryptosensitivity syndrome" was first being promoted by someone who frequently trolled autism forums trying to stir up trouble.  It is his invention.  No professionals have ever seriously considered it to my knowledge, to replace autism or Asperger's or anything else.  I do not have a reference for it unfortunately except my own blog entry on the topic, http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=11 that I wrote during the time when Crypto Sensitivity seemed to be making a bizarre comeback.  It's like an urban myth that's gotten out of control. The person's name, who invented it, was variously Mike Hack or Mike Hackett. Anbuend 17:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Editing again to say I finally found a fairly typical discussion thread referencing this "syndrome", http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.autism/tree/browse_frm/thread/e6f260a0f2ef4ccd/ which if you click "newer" you can read the rest of the discussion.  The "cryptose" link is the link to the "crypto sensitivity" criteria, by their creator ("eyreland"). Anbuend 17:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crypto sensitivity syndrome 

message: I've changed the wording of the Sensory Integration Dysunction section to make it more neutral. Not everybody agrees with the notion that sensitivity is a dysfunction, and there is virtually no PublMed support for such a disorder. If the treatment for SID is useful it could be included somewhere else without making people believe that sensory problems necessarily must be a disorder --Rdos 17:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a problem with the wording then you should mention that "some people disagree with the wording of this", not just chop out a perfectly valid wikilink to a "disorder" that probably most professionals agree is part of autism Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could backup the existence of such a disorder it can be left there, but I'm pretty sure you can't. The situation for SID is exactly the same as for Crypto Sensitivity Syndrome. It only exists in the minds of the people promoting the treatments. --Rdos 18:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to alternative wording. If this is not in Ryans taste either, I propose he add the disclaimer himself, if he has any sense of neutrality (doubtful) --Rdos 19:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Nah, I'm just the one who got this to featured article status :).... I couldn't POSSIBLY be neutral... ug. Listen, SID is not accepted as a diagnosis by most phsychiatrists (sp) but the symptoms are for autism, and adding a long disclaimer here mucks up an otherwise unconfusing section. I'll try to shorten it here. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Sensory Integration Dysfunction 

message: This is just another indication that this article has no NPOV. The vaccine theory, popular with PARENTS of autistics has zero support as being credible. Many large studies have been done that cannot confirm it. This should make it obsolete in a featured article about autism, other than as an entry in the historical section. --Rdos 04:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: sigh did you read it? It was rather soundly refuted. It belongs here though because its a very popular theory.  Speaking of which it would be nice if you would stop being so combative all the time :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  vaccine theory 

message: It seems a shame to have the son-rise section in there under treatments and not mention that it has NO empirical evidence to support it, or that the diagnosis of the son the program was named for was questionable.  If we're going to include treatments, ought we give a sense of what is and is not supported?
Ditto for the gluten casin -- this is, at best, a controversial treatment. For parents and others coming to this page, a note on the pros and cons and data for these treatments seems vital.
:Yes, I agree. I'll look into it, in the mean time feel free to edit it!!! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely think gluten and casin should be retained as these actually are things that can make autistics feel better, and without any kind of ABA therapy and without any kind of possible side-effects --Rdos 18:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  son-rise 

message: You've been on other pages saying things like " I disagree as to the NPOV of autism related pages" and "The norm is that questionable treatments are presented in central parts of the articles while anti-cure ideas are at best mentioned in "passing"". So let's address these things here rather on other pages and AfDs, ok?
Here's what you said:
*SID has been retained, and there is absolutely no research supporting this "disorder", neither is it included in DSM. THe only reason it is there is because it supports the negative view of autism
**SID has not been retained here - the only mention of it is that autism has "symptoms like those found in SID".
*The vaccine theory, although thoroughly discarded in every study, is also retained.
**And why should it be discarded? At WORST its very historical like the extreme-male brain theory. 
*Simon Baron Cohens "extreme maleness" theory is also feature, even if it has zero support in research. About the only supportive evidence is that psychiatry think the male-female ration is 4:1. AFAIK, this is only because the diagnostic criteria is centered around men. IOW, this is circle reasoning.
**Again - it doesn't really matter because its a historical theory that was popular a while long ago but not today....
*All the disorder-based research has been retained while every other POV has either been deleted or delegated to small sections outside of the main article [...] you are required to add material that is in disagreement with this view, whether it is onl hearsay in the autistic community or not
**Could you please specific? Much of the "disorder-based" research here is historical and even the ones that arn't have many verifiable and peer-reviewed backing them up. I thought the anti-cure perspective was well-represented here. Please give me specific examples.
Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:36, 24 
September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I guess I will have to defend myself then? ;-)
* SID. OK, I suppose the current state is ok. However, it is also mentioned in the "Autism as a spectrum disorder section".
* Vaccine theory and extreme maleness. If you read those sections carefully you will problably understand that they are historical, but they are not presented in historical sections of the article. Causal readers will probably think these are serious and still relevant. Cohen's theory is presented under "models" section, which reads as the current state.
* Disorder perspective. In the "Theories of the etiology of autism", there are a long row of disorder theories, including viral infection, vaccines, brain damage and some others, but the pure difference "theory" is not presented! In the "remedition" section, ABA, son-rise, diet and computers are suggested, but no intervention is not presented! The "autism culture" concept is instead presented in the sociology section. I find this quite problematic, especially for Swedish readers where there is a sociologist named Eva Kärfve that is disputing all neuropsychiatric conditions, and instead blame parents for being bad. This is what I meant when I wrote that disorder-based research were presented in central parts (models, etiology, remedition) while non-cure ideas are in the "sociology" section. Maybe the problems aren't as bad as I presented them, but historical theories should be presented as historical, and the anti-cure perspective should be part of model, etiology and remedy sections. If that is fixed, I guess I will be content ;-) --Rdos 15:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose this is the research methodology that Ryan advocates. As long as it describes autism as a horrible disorder, it obviously doesn't matter if the theories have any substance to the or not. Besides, the only maleness in autism is in diagnostic criteria, which of course is not the truth about autism. --Rdos 07:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. The theory has to do with neurological and innate skill differences. Masculinity and femeininity (gender roles) are cultural constructs, and really have little or nothing to do with neurology. The most notable aspect of Baron-Cohen's theory is that it neatly explains the differential diagnostic rate in males vs. females. Neurodivergent 15:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To rely on the perceived diagnostic gender prevalence of AS is not sound. The theory simply falls apart with this fictive construct. For instance in the thousands of answers I've received to Aspie-quiz, women with a dx have 10-15 points *higher* score than men. This difference have been persistent in all three version, it did not change much as I wrote more questions (and proposedly added more male traits). It also survived attempts of gender-based correction on questions. It is not very true either that Aspies are not empathic. It seems like highly sensitive and empathic Aspies get big problems. Also, special interests seems to be a male thing, but it only makes up a tiny bit of the traits correlated with the autism spectrum. The typical female problems are simply not part of the dx. --Rdos 20:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't draw too many conclussions from something like that. It's not a randomized sample. Furthermore, I'd bet that the number of males who take the test is much larger than the number of females, correct? (I'm guessing about 4:1?) With those who actually are preocupied enough to take such a test, I wouldn't expect to see much of a difference in scoring across sexes. As to why females score higher, I can only guess that for a female to go and take that test, the severity of the condition needs to be greater (in average). Neurodivergent 21:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. There is no 4:1 relation as to who takes the test. Version I: AS/HFA: 70 males, 84 females. Version II: AS/HFA: 335 males, 236 females. Version III: AS/HFA: 1133 males, 696 females. Version II: Total: 738 males, 724 females. Version III: Total: 3335 males, 2335 females. This gives relations of  1:1.2, 1.4:1, 1.6:1 for AS/HFA and 1:1, 1.4:1 for total. None of these are even close to the proposed 4:1 relation. It is also notable that version III has most answers from people outside of the autistic community (it hasn't been announced there). --Rdos 06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's counter-intuitive, and I'm not sure how it can be explained. Perhaps you're right, and the diagnostics are biased instead (i.e. parents worry more when a boy isn't talking than when a girl isn't). Neurodivergent 14:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Another possibility is that given that females talk earlier and socialize earlier in average, this is enough to skew the diagnostic rates. However, when they reach adulthood, the difference disappears. Neurodivergent 14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is all testable, BTW. You could take random general-population groups of males and females (perhaps brother and sister pairs), and give them the Aspie Quiz or the AQ test. Then you'd compare their scores. According to Baron-Cohen, males would score higher in average. Neurodivergent 14:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another indication that "self-perception" means a lot is the score distribution. Even though version I was highly experimental, it seems got better selectivity on various questions than follow-ups. It is also interesting that in the first releases, the self-identification group scored higher than the diagnosed group. In later versions this was reversed. I think this is at least partly due to that the first quizes being mostly answered by highly self-aware people, and the latter to less self-aware. Many of the evaluations are available here [] --Rdos 14:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Neurodivergent, I'm interested in your idea that "for a female to go and take that test, the severity of the condition needs to be greater (in average)". What are you basing this on? Just curious, --Bluejay Young 08:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just the only explanation I could come up with for a greater female score. In other words, some males may go because they're curious. Females may go when they are worried. Neurodivergent 14:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I could offer some other explainations myself. It might be that females and males have different levels of "self-perception". Females might more easily recognize their own problems, possibly because they are expected to be more social. I don't think the hypothesis that females needs to be more worried holds. There seems to be equal proportions of answers from both diagnosed and undiagnosed, with a slightly higher male-to-female ratio for diagnosed. I think because the dx is geared towards typical male problems, parents will more easily seek diagnosis for a male. --Rdos 14:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rdos's challenges 

message: It seems worth adding in some of the face processing abnormality in autism in the characteristics section, probably under social development.  The lack of normal eye contact is such a big diagnosis indicator for autism and one of the big things that gets people into doctor's offices.  There's also really great eyetracking and imaging data on abnormal face processing in autism -- i.e., kids with autism fixating on people's mouths when speaking to them rather than the eyes, lack of normal brain activation to faces, etc... This seems like a big part of the social deficits of autism, and right now it isn't even mentioned.
What do you think?
:Good point. It would be great if something like that was expanded. I'll try to look into it when I have time, but to anyone - feel free to add it yourself! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A) Please stop using your own site as a reference, Rdos. B) What I see there is original research without sources. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can use it as references as much as I want. The Aspie-quiz builds on nearly 4000 answers, so it is relevant. I will publish the current version as original research with far-reaching consequences for Baron-Cohen and his supporters.--Rdos 08:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: A whole lot of difference. A deficit is something that is independent of environment, while a difference might potentially not be. If it is a difference, there is every reason to believe that people with the same difference will not have any "social deficits" among themselves. --Rdos 18:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  face processing/gaze abnormalities 

message: I was just wondering, there are symptoms that are shared by autism and social phobia. For example, a social phobic may avoid eye contact as well, simply because it makes him nervous. How do you distinguish between autism and social phobia? Scorpionman 02:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One pronounced way is the sensory issues an autistic has. There are other ways too but I imagine that's the easiest. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Sensory issues are not required for autism, though (as with anything in autism it seems). One sure way to distinguish is that autistics don't just avoid socializing, they generally lack the skills to do so. For example, in a group conversation the autistic has very little idea of when is a good time to chime in or of what things to say would be considered acceptable/relevant in that social situation. As a result, the autistic person could develop something equivalent to severe social phobia. I'm sure many autistics just don't like to socialize, period. Neurodivergent 17:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Not being a social doesn't mean you don't want to be social and hence imaginary friends are created for this role. (Though I know nothing.) Skinnyweed 01:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There are also reasons for having imaginary friends other than compensating for social loneliness. And yes, autistics who communicate report having imaginary friends and even their own worlds (not to be confused with the "in her own world" stereotype often used to describe an autistic who seems not to perceive reality -- the operative word being seems). There have been several overgeneralizations made about autistics through the decades; first it was that we were trapped in a fantasy world and could not perceive reality. Then, it was decided that we did not fantasize or daydream at all and were incapable of it -- still the prevalent view, as evidenced by this article. As always, listening to autistics speak (or write) for themselves, rather than making assumptions, is the key. --Bluejay Young 14:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback on the idea of imaginary companions. I don't believe, however, that the prevalent view on daydreaming is as you've suggested.  Perhaps an ignorant minority believe this, but I would wager that the vast majority of those having an interest in autistic individuals are quite aware that much daydreaming goes on. As to listening to autistic persons being the "key" to understanding, I think that is obvious. There's still a gap, however, and that's why I asked the question. Thanks again.--Leftymn 02:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social 

message: I added Madsen's paper in Pediatrics 2003;112:604-6  about the rising rates of autism in Denmark despite thimerosal being discontinued there in 1992, making the link between autism and thimerosal very unlikely.  Andrew73 22:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've further clarified that the amount of thimerosal used in vaccines decreased over the interval in Madsen et al.'s study in response to User:Leifern's view that it was an "unreferenced allegation."  It is stated clearly in their Pediatrics paper .  Andrew73 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thimerosal and Denmark

message: I reverted a MASSIVE edit by 128.233.153.48. There is a lot of good stuff in there, but for the most part it is largely POV, uses inspeak (neurotypical), and is inaccurate and does not cite sources (" Approximately 50% of people described as "savants" are autistic, although only 10% of autistics are considered savants").
Here's an example of how to fix this:
"Despite the mention of delays in imaginative play, autistic people are just as imaginative as neurotypical people. However, they tend to show it in different ways, such as sitting and quietly imagining a different world without acting it out, or "becoming" a different person rather than having an imaginary friend."
The first sentence is POV since it asserts that "autistic people are just as imaginative as neurotypical people". It is also defensive and there is no need to do that here. Also, don't use neurotypical - most people won't understand it and it itself is somewhat controversial  - just use non-autistics. As for the second sentence while it may be true it is completely unreferenced which is unacceptable for an article here (and I do not remember this in the current references).
:I am strongly in favour of emphasizing and including everywhere I can that autistics possess imagination. (suppressing my urge to rant briefly on perception of autistics as lacking emotion, imagination, etc.) There is plenty of anecdotal evidence supporting what 128.233.153.48 said, what we have to do is cite articles where autistics describe their imaginary play. 
:I thought the statistics he gave for savants were based partly on the old Wired article (where did Wired get them? They didn't come from Rimland).  I'm not against the use of "neurotypical" if it is defined within the article, but I never insist on it. --Bluejay Young 18:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  large-scale POV/inaccurate edit 

message: One episode from the original "Twilight Zone" TV series was called "Silent Snow, Secret Snow," having to do with a boy who closes up to the outside world, as a dreamy voice says, more or less, "not a seed into a flower, but a flower into a seed." I've taken this as a metaphor for autism.  Does anyone remember this?  Am I correct, or is this something else?
:I can't find it listed at List of The Twilight Zone episodes - Tεxτurε 22:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't The Twilight Zone. It was Night Gallery. The narrator was Orson Welles. Many people have historically mistaken the protagonist's pathological withdrawal for autism. Find out a bit more here: Silent Snow, Secret Snow. --Bluejay Young 08:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autism in "Twilight Zone" series 

message: The Colour-se7en link doesn't seem as if it should be here -- it's a new site with very little unique content, and few visitors so far.  I deleted the link from the AS and savant pages a couple of weeks ago, and from the AS page today. I think it probably should go from this page as well; if it stays, then there's really no justification for removing any autism-related site, and you end up with a huge link list. ManekiNeko | Talk 01:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour-se7en.co.uk link 

message: It seems to me that the reference in the introduction to "debate" in the "scientific community" should be more specific in two ways. It would be a plus to indicate (if it can do so very briefly) that the debate takes place in the context of research. Also, it should mention (and link to) the fields that study autism, and the appropriate place for that is in the introduction, as an important part of the context for the subject. There is already a linked mention of Psychiatry and Physiology; Psychology should be included. I have to admit I am not sufficiently familiar with other fields (psychology is immense as it is), to know which other fields have made contributions that meet the threshold of substantial. Other editors here may add fields as they see fit. I would only caution that good judgement be used; for example, I know prominent researchers of autism in departments with names that are some variation on "Human Development," but they are essentially developmental psychology, thus a branch of psychology. -DoctorW 01:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are at least 3 studies that have tried to link HOXA1 and HOXB1 to autism, but no luck. That's probably why her work hasn't gained more prominence. Neurodivergent 15:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found other papers on PubMed that conflict with these findings. Details in the Heritability of autism article. The problem here is that while a single allelic variant of HOXA1 or HOXB1 is probably insufficient to trigger the developmental cascade resulting in the brainstem differences found in both humans and transgenic mice, multiple allelic variants combining may provide a satisfactory model. Indeed there is redundancy across HOXA1 and HOXB1, demonstrated courtesy of the fact that transgenic mice with variant alleles in both genes exhibit a much more profound spectrum of developmental differences than those mice expressing variance in alleles in one of the genes alone. Again, relevant papers linked in the heritability article. Given that the HOXA1 relation to the brainstem relates to diagnostic criteria derived independently of genetic research (e.g., the auditory brainstem response test alighted upon by Dr Simon Baron-Cohen et al), I suspect that further work in this area will prove enlightening. Additionally, Rodier opened up the possibility that these allelic variants interact with as-yet undiscovered teratogens : valproic acid studies with transgenic mice produced similar brainstem changes. The fact that these candidate genes govern a developmental mechanism that is sensitive to the effects of a range of known teratogens (namely valproic acid and thalidomide) suggests that a search for a combination of variant alleles and teratogens coupling with those variant alleles would be fruitful. If someone supplied me with the research funds, I'd jump at the chance to investigate this! Calilasseia 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, but it looks like there are a number of other loci which are much more promising. I suppose it's possible for someone to have HOXA1/HOXB1 and appear autistic, but given current findings, this is not how most cases come about. In reality there doesn't appear to be an "autism gene" or even a number of genes. There could be hundreds of genes which contribute slightly one way or another. It doesn't look like they will ever be able to come up with a genetic test that can accurately predict that someone is autistic. The best possible test might give a result like this: Your child has a 10% chance of being 'normal', 30% chance of being 'high-functioning', and 60% chance of being a classic autistic. Neurodivergent 14:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who researches autism?

message: I've started an article titled Heritability of autism. You're all welcome to help build it. I don't intend it to be a POV fork in case you're wondering. Neurodivergent 15:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I'd like to document every single genetic finding of significance there, with prevalence information. Neurodivergent 18:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heritability of autism 

message: Another pending issue in this article as well as in the autism epidemic article is references to decrease in 'new cases' of autism in California. Looking at the data itself  (it's quite informative, btw, and I might post an analysis) what the articles refer to is a decrease in the increase of total caseload handled by the state. From one quarter to the next, some new kids enter the system, and others obviously leave. Kids leave because the state cannot keep them indefinitely (I think age 18 is the cap) but I'm sure some are deemed recovered, some move out of the state or leave for other reasons. So the difference in caseload is not just kids going into the California system ('new cases'); it's kids going in minus those leaving. I'm guessing close to 4000 per year are entering the system, i.e. about 1.25% of all kids born in any given year. This is rather high, considering that we're not talking Asperger's. I'm guessing kids are entering the system at different ages, and awareness hasn't totally caught up. Clearly, the increase in caseload every quarter cannot itself increase indefinitely -- pretty soon everyone in California would be in the DDS. Neurodivergent 01:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'New cases' in California 

message: I find myself itching to make changes to the article, but it all comes down to one problem with it: the premise that autism is a single condition the way Downs syndrome, Turners syndrome, etc., is. If one is willing to question that premise and assume that the broad term "autism" in fact refers to a number of different conditions with different etiology but vaguely similar manifestations, all the theories and ideas about etiology, treatment/remediation, etc. may or may not be true.  I'm not sure how to resolve this in the article, but we'll continue to have unnecessary disagreements if we continue to act on the shaky premise that it's all one thing. --Leifern 14:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With all the gene loci identified so far, findings which seem to vary depending on the region looked at or family sample, I'd say the evidence is pretty conclussive that there are many different conditions that fall under the umbrella "autism". (Many of those conditions arguably are already known). Unfortunately, the science hasn't caught up with that fact, and we can't document conditions we don't know about. What this article does really is document an entry in the DSM-IV. Neurodivergent 14:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And the irony of that is that very few believe that psychiatry plays much of a role at all - which means that the DSM-IV perspective is the least valid of all. --Leifern 15:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not necesary that autism is many conditions just because the genetic background is very diverse. I see it as one condition that is related to us being a hybrid species. The comorbidities instead should be classfied as autistic traits. We will research the connection between autistic traits and neurodiversity traits in the next Aspie-quiz --Rdos 05:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One could argue that it is a single phenotype manifested through a hundred different genotypes and a few phenocopies, but I think that once the specific genotypes are found, new names will be proposed, as has occurred with Rett syndrome. Neurodivergent 19:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic problem with the premise 

message: I checked the American Journal of Insanity for 1912 and couldn't find any paper by Bleuler.  I haven't deleted this date, as I can't think of a substitute for what it clearly a very important fact: the first use of the word autism to describe a behavioral disorder.  If anyone can help, it would be good.86.137.200.80
* http://www.barrypopik.com/article/949/summary Apokrif 18:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bleuler date wrong 

message: I actually find it more objectionable to categorize autism as a psychiatric disorder than a communication disorder, and many don't think the term "disorder" should apply at all. Having said that, the main problem is that the definition and diagnostic criteria are lousy for this condition. We might want to consider the purpose of categorization for this article as well. In the meanwhile, I'm reverting. --Leifern 12:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: These need to be cited and they seem like an ad... 
As for the discussion above as autism as a seperate condition - the problem is that people believe they are seperate conditions (well, less and less now) but it definately is easier to treat it as one condition for the purpose of this article, and it tends to make more sense to keep it in the spectrum-articles. As is I think it does a good job of "differentiating" (if that were possible) the conditions. 
Finally, as for Liefern's comment "in the meanwhile, I'm reverting" - the point of removing that cat was to avoid revert wars. Incidentally it would probably be better off to have those listed as "conditions", rather than "disorders". But I digress, my theory of it preventing revert wars has proven mostly incorrect in the past so it is a moot issue.
WhiteNight T | @ | C 16:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DAN! etc. 

message: There is a little edit war going on at autistic enterocolitis.  This is NOT a request for making it worse!  Rather, I note that this article doesn't have reference to the GI problems common in the autistic kids nor anything about copper metabolism.  Other medical matters probably need to be included.  I'd eventually like to see the autistic enterocolitis article be about that specific category and have other medical stuff here.  Any thoughts on where that ought to go? Steve Holland MD Kd4ttc 23:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: where to put other medical findings

message: I realize the need to curb excessive references and links at the bottom of this article, but I noticed that the ones which remain are mostly those which refer to autism from the cure-it or disordered standpoint. Is this intentional; for instance, should autistics.org not be listed under "resources" because it is opposed to the dominant culture's view (and therefore more appropriate in the Controversies in autism article instead)? Bluejay Young 09:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No way. It's the standard in most articles, when there's disagreement in the world about the subject, to include more than one-side views when there are opposing ones to give a fuller picture. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 11:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The single-minded viewpoint is common in most autism-related articles on Wikipedia, and the one's with differing views are VfD periodically until they eventually becomes deleted. Must be the curebie maffia that is behind this. BTW, I was under the impression that single-mindedness was an autistic trait, but it seems to cluster with curebees. --Rdos 20:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I will be happy to put some of those links back. Thank you for clearing this up. Bluejay Young 18:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, why is there a blog section of the links? I thought blogs were considered among the least noteworthy of websites, so it doesn't make sense to have a blog section when it is necessary to keep external links very short. Q0 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the way blogs have been turning up news and becoming a force to be reckoned with by CNN and others, maybe they're not considered something that can just be tossed off and dismissed any more. Perhaps it depends on the blog. I imagine if it's something mature and thought-provoking it would be alright. Two or three, as examples, at least. Bluejay Young 04:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus on disorder/cure (or at least mainstream view) in links? 

message: Can autism be interchangeable with antisocial personality disorder? It seems to me that some of the symptoms are shared (i.e., lack of emotion). Scorpionman 04:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No way.  Not at all!  Autism is definitely not a personality disorder.  Kd4ttc 14:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not only that, but your idea that autistics lack emotion is outdated. This is now known to be completely untrue. You might want to read Clara Claiborne Park's books The Siege and Exiting Nirvana about her autistic daughter. Bluejay Young 18:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it also false that people with antisocial personality disorder lack emotion? Q0 01:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's not beat up on Scorpionman too much.  It was initially a question on categorization.  Medical classification, that is, diagnosis, often deals with illnesses that share symptoms.  Cough can be present in both pneumonia and congestive heart failure, and you would be surprised how hard it can be to distinguish the two even with a chest x-ray.  The antisocial personality disorder is where there are a pattern of behaviors that hurt others.  The brain is funcitonal, but the choices of behavior that are made include several of the following problems: failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest, deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure, impulsivity or failure to plan ahead, irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults, reckless disregard for safety of self or others, consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations, or lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.  In contrast, in Autism you have a brain that is dysfunctional, with inability to organize incoming communication or sensation and inability to express themselves normally.  In both cases the presence or absence of emotion are not really an issus. Even in the antisocial personality disorder there may be emotion even with no remorse.  Kd4ttc 16:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I was going only by Scorpionman's exact words and didn't realize he was asking about categorization.  Bluejay Young 06:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: http://trainland.tripod.com/digby.htm Apokrif 18:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apokrif: You need to amplify on that. Kd4ttc 17:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't emphasizing on the lack of emotion, as you've just said. I was just using it as an example. There are a host of symptoms that may be shared, as the above website said (although I doubt that the kid had asperger's; he probably had a form of personality disorder that was confused with autism). I was diagnosed with Asperger's myself; it actually runs in my family. My grandfather has it, my dad has it, my brother has it, and I have it. Generally, I don't lack emotions. But when hanging around social circles that I usually am on the outside of, I can't stand them showing positive emotions. My biggest symptom of Asperger's is outbursts of anger (which are common to autistics and those with personality disorders). But I'm not really malicious; I do have a strong sense of regret after having done something bad or stupid, which is usually what keeps me from doing such things. I've also pointed out similarities between social phobia and autism; please see the autism talk page. Scorpionman 19:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: These were really timely comments.  Just yesterday a patient presented to my clinic with a long history of digestive complaints.  They were vague, but triggered by milk or sugar.  I then got out of him that his mom used to cook with special grains, milk free, and sugar and food dye free.  I had just read about that diet approach in Asperger's syndrome, and asked if he had trouble in social situations.  That got quite a surprised reaction from him.  He hates social chit chat and people around him get uncomfortable with him in those situations.  His father was the same way.  I'll be doing an EGD and colonoscopy and will see what he has.  Dr. Holland Kd4ttc 04:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, autism does have several links to the gut. I've been diagnosed with this disorder myself and I don't do well socially. When I'm standing in a room full of people talking and laughing, and no one is paying any attention to me, I feel very uncomfortable and sometimes get angry because I'm not recieving any attention. But I do all right when someone starts talking to me. I mostly rely on others to help me into social situations; if I go by myself I'll have a panic attack! I was listening to Dr. Tony Attwood awhile ago and he was talking about symptoms that I definitely have. I actually had a friend once who had Aspergers syndrome, and he met all of the criteria. He and I would play and he would basically be the boss. I tried to suggest what to play and he often didn't agree with it. Also, we went to the same school, and he was very sensitive to the noise there. He also got unreasonably irritated at me and other students and it would get to the point where we wouldn't talk to each other for the rest of the day. But we would usually get back together eventually and we still make contact with each other. I read the big discussion on the Aspergers syndrome talk page and I am also a big science fiction buff (although I haven't memorized any Dr. Who episodes). I am an Aspie but I don't agree that all Aspies are science fiction buffs, and not all science fiction buffs are Aspies. Some may be interested in literature, and some may be into actual science (as opposed to the fictional literature). My dad is a railfan, and my mom does get irritated at him for it. My interests tend to change, but they almost always have something to do with science or science fiction! Scorpionman 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisocial personality disorder 

message: The diet section seems to just mention that diet is an option.  In contrast, in the real world, the gluten free/caseine free diet is very widely used by autism patients.  Shouldn't this section be worded more strongly?  Kd4ttc 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet section 

message: I find these sections chaotic. What is the reason for this division? I would propose to extract the causes & ethiology sections into a separate article and merge with the Asperger's syndrom "causes" section. I did re-write the "causes" section of the Asperger's article to separate theories according to different views of autism. I would suggest this should be done here as well, but I find it rather hard to do when methods and ethiology are separated. --Rdos 15:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally do like the division. Models that attempt to explain autistic behavior are different to theories that propose specific physical factors that may cause autism. Granted, some (like the mirror neuron theory) should probably be moved to the other section. Neurodivergent 19:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methods and ethiology sections 

message: There has been an ongoing discussion in gold salts about how much material about gold salts in autism should be incorporated into the gold salts article.  Given that the use of gold salts in autism is investigational, a few sentences, not paragraphs would be more appropriate in the gold salts article.  I figured that this material would be more appropriate in the autism article.  Andrew73
: The gold salt section were moved with the therapies section to Autism therapies. Further comments should be made in the new article --Rdos 16:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold salts 

message: I think this section should be split out of the main autism article and put in Autism therapies or something similar. Wikipedia still complains about the size of the article, even after I've moved models & etiology sections to a new article. Thoughts? --Rdos 06:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but you should also leave the section title where it was and add a main tag. Neurodivergent 14:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better now? --Rdos 16:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I left a comment in Talk:Causes of autism. Neurodivergent 17:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: At least I am a lot more happy about the article now that it isn't cluttered with wild speculations about "cures" and causes. This should have been done a long time ago. As for footnotes, I think you did a good job with them. The best part is that the autism article now isn't cluttered with speculative "research" foot-notes! --Rdos 19:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autism therapy section 

message: This may be a tangent to a previous discussion, and I was going to place it in Autistic savant, but this article seems to get more attention :-)
Is there any research that demonstrates that savantism is more prevalent among autists than in the general population? It seems to me that non-autistic people can have extraordinary mental abilities as well, and those might go under-reported as they're not as interesting as the autistic savant. I 18:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand it's 10% of autistics and 0.5% of the general population. Rimland I believe made the observation first. I've also heard 30%. Judging 'savantism' is a bit subjective. For example, an extraordinarily good computer programmer may be said to have 'savant skills'. Also, recent research by Mottron-Dawson is challenging the notion that autistics are cognitively impaired. It would appear that, at least based on the Raven IQ test, autistics as a group are cognitively above the general population. Neurodivergent 19:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that be Rimland's chapter in the (1978) book by Serban? If so, I'm afraid that would considered to be a bit dated now. Mottron, to the best of my knowledge, only does research into the abilities of autistic savants, not into its general prevalence. I could be mistaken of course (this is from memory), but a reference to a peer-reviewed article would be nice. I 14:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right. Any prevalence of autistic characteristics published around 1980 probably makes no sense now (divide by 3 or so). Mottron-Dawson is in French. Here's a translation: . This poster is remarkable as well:  (has an error in the test norming, but the graphs are basically sound). Neurodivergent 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, neither of those seem to be relevant to savantism. I'm aware of studies regarding autistic task performance (and have designed one or two myself), but what I'm looking for is evidence that *exceptional* mental abilities are more prevalent among autists than the general population. If it isn't, then much information about autistic savantism may be misleading, as it implies a connection between autism and savantism which may be spurious. I 9:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative prevalence of savantism