i am from NZ. Here we have many different people and cultures. From european to asia to island immigrants and native maori people. sometimes i wonder if AS is more apparent in some cultures than others. Or it manifests differently. I don't want to make judgements, i am just curious.
i was going to do a poll but i realised there are so many different peoples and i did not want to forget any. If someone else can construct a better poll that would be good.
becca
This has recently been discussed in the General section in a thread called Pervasive whiteness, it was generalluy discussed whether there are more caucasians on the spectrum and why that might be, if its from increased diagnosis etc.
Statistically there is apparently more caucasians with autism than in other races, as a percentage of the whole.
If there is a different autism ratio in different races, which, as a genetic condition, seems quite likely, maybe it'll put some holes in environmental theories for the cause of autism...
Thankyou for the thread tip- there are probably so many explanations for higher caucasian diagnoses that are valid. i just hope people get the support they need.
becca
If there is a different autism ratio in different races, which, as a genetic condition, seems quite likely, maybe it'll put some holes in environmental theories for the cause of autism...
Only if one treats autism as a single issue. The kind of "autism" which gives us unusually able scientists and other tech types is hardly likely to have any relation to the profound retardation and other abnormalities (currently lumped under the same label) which may arise from lead or mercury poisoning, for example. If autism was due to just one set, or combination of genes, it would surely have been identified by now. In fact there are many individual genes that have been "linked" to autism, but are by no means present in all autistics, so when we consider the possible combinations, autism is likely to be recognised in time as a multitude of similar appearing, but really quite distinct conditions...and that's without taking into acount environmental issues!
That we are usually spoken of as being on a spectrum is really down to bogus generalisations; there's a segment of society who would prefer to believe that those of us who only differ in our way of thinking, are in fact inferior in some way (it depends entirely on one's point of view) but really the fault is theirs, in letting their herd instinct cloud their judgment. While some aspects considered autistic are unfortunate, there are also the elements which almost certainly lead us to most of the major breakthroughs which gave us the technology we enjoy today.
I also have wondered why autism and AS are said to be part of a spectrum, to be honest, it seem far more likely to me that they are distinct conditions which, while related, are not really different forms of the same condition. In any case, it seems to me that bone of the major problems plaguing our efforts to figure out the relationships between ASDs is the fact that there seems to be a great deal of overlap between them.
I feel that AS/HFA and LFA/classic autism are the same condition separated by certain points, such as use of language.
My son was dx LFA and is now classed as HFA/AS, this is because he now has much better language skills and can communicate. As he has developed, so have his skills, but he is intrinsically the same person. He has technically moved along the spectrum.
I think I will spend a bit more time studying this... If those who are originally DXd LFA and eventually are reclassified cannot be distinguished from those who remain LFA, then I would think that would support the spectrum model. If however the two classes are distinct, it would seem to me that the data does not support the spectrum model. If anyone knows where data can be found, please contact me.
Actually, how about if anyone who either fits into one of these categories or can represent someone who does (i.e. parents of those who have not been reclassified form LFA), contact me with any information that you are willing to let me use, I can run a few statistical tests to see if the data you report indicates a statistical difference.
Have you checked this thread?
http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/phpBB2/v...highlight=
This test, based on a much more thorough proffessional version (which I took way back in 1981, and found I was highly autisitic, but in a completely different sense to which most now understand the term) is in turn based on aspects of the human temperament of which one was called autism. This is from studies way back before Asperger and Kanner supposedly invented the phrase (and independantly? It's improbable isn't it!) so what they really did was borrow a term (or rather, a limited aspect of the term) already in widespread use.
The relevance to this thread (and our PM Nemidaelius) is that this original understanding is still valid (check the posted results, and on other sites) to a great many, but not to all those currently diagnosed autistic or AS. In fact, it seems more relevant to low function (but capable of web communication) autistics than it does to many of those diagnosed AS by the current DSM hodge-podge diagnosis. How does this come about? The DSM, as far as I can determine, doesn't attempt to assess autism as an aspect of temperament, and so includes many who, if you study the characteristics, quite clearly don't have the signs of this particular mind set, or way of viewing things. Furthermore, if you read popular texts on "Aspies" as opposed to clinical texts, it's these mind set characteristics they tend to focus on (as, after all, "Aspie" as coined by Tony Attwood, really refered to those who can get by independantly, who's morbidities are sub clinical, and non obvious to a casual observer, but who's way of thinking sets them apart from the common herd). This is also the focus of what Asperger himself wrote (yes, like a good scientist, he mentioned the morbidities his subjects had, but then, he only got the chance to study them because they were institutionalised; it's amasing how many doom merchants want to focus on the morbidities though, and try so determinedly to derail any recognition of "Aspies" as capable, essential, net contributors to human development!) so again, there's a constant and definite link; if only today's clinicians would take the trouble to note and remember this, then perhaps the research would be more productive?
I have lots of background on the research of Humm and Wadsworth (which was the start point for todays C&M) and one paper (this is pre 1920, so hard to find on the web) by Rosanoff who's classification started this (though I suspect he wasn't the first to use the word autism) and would be happy to mail copies to interested parties, or maybe post them wholesale in a new thread?
The distinctions of the various degrees of "autism" are of interest to parents of course, and should help in determining appropriate education and therapies, but many such distinctions dissappear before adulthood, and so research seems to stop there. To really get to grips with the phenomenon (in particular, to distinguish it from current concerns about toxic or other environmental issues, which clearly can't be the same; Newton, Einstein, et al didn't result from brain damage!) researchers really need to get back to the original understanding of the term, and we need to tell them so (because nobody else will).
I agree with much of this, although that test you linked to returned an 'inconclusive' on me :? Possibly due to my having ADHD as well as AS.
I agree that the criteria are open to interpretation in different ways, and may be inclusive of some who differ from the traditional aspie, I suppose that is what I meant above, that some existing categories could be further divided. Psychological conditions are just too darn slippery...
Also, with, for example, five or more aspects of temperament, all of which can be further broken down, no two Aspies will be alike.
As it's a neurological issue though, ways of thinking is a good place to start. It's really worth studying the way the A component (if sufficiently strong) reacts with the others, to see the variations that can occur, but also to note those observations which distinguish us from non-As; with practise and study, these can be spotted, and although there will always be borderline entities, this does not preclude the identification of many currently masquerading as Aspies (especially those seeking entry to the various site Admins) who demonstrate they can't possibly have a significant A component.
When looking at measured variables which transend humanity as a whole, it becomes clear that, on most such measures, these H types who predominate among the more rabid control freaks, do not in fact border us at all, but are rather at the opposite end of the spectrum, with the bulwark of the bulk of humanity in between.
Apart from the ease of distinguishing this allows, it may also explain why they have such a down on Aspies (as anyone with experience in industry will realise if they take the trouble to study this aspect) it may explain why this type can be found infiltrating Aspie sites under false guises, and determinedly undermining any debate which emphasises the positive aspects of AS, who try to broaden and dilute the definitions, who sabotage any suggestion we should be more proactive in demanding freedom from discrimination, and of course do their utmost to scotch the idea that objective tests (as could be developed quite easily from the full C&M, funds permiting) can differentiate us from other humans!
In most comparissons to the H type, better known as the "establishment" (they usually end up running everything, and to their exclusive advantage) we Aspies reall are their polar opposites, and we don't understand each others motives nor aspirations, and, for example, where Aspies will "live and let live" to a fault, the H types see others as segments to be subjugated and exploited. In particular, they take the NT tendencey for "herd instinct" to extremes; which leads to them experience fear and loathing for those who might be their intellectual equals, but who don't respond to the levers of emotion, the need to integrate and conform, and the desire for riches and status, by which they so easily manipulate most people. Yep, that's us folks!