I've been participating in studies ever since college when I aced my entrance exams.  Of course, the studies used to be IQ studies ... now, since I am diagnosed with Asperger's, I participate in those studies.  My son and I even did a father/son study as the University of Michigan.

Anyway, feel free to email me, I like to be studied.

"I want to write as essay to give a voice to you autistics" We already have a voice

Well said!

Ok,  I have also transgressed and having read the background can see why this is a sensitive issue.  My posting is withdrawn and I apoligise   without reservation for any offence I may have  caused. In my defense  I would indicate that my work is legitimate and  hopefully postive.  But given the  problems  'you' have had ,  I can see why you have adopted this approach with research questions.   Sorry again .

I agree on the credentials. They don't need to be high scientific credentials. Someone on the spectrum already has some credentials. Looking at monkeys is not what we need. Looking at credentials could also mean that the student should tell how the forum would benefit from the study. There could be a fee asked, not always in money, but in publication on the forum, for the forum f.i. I think it is wise to cut down on researchers. It's also wise to get research done, so there will be more knowledge about autism. Research is OK, but we should benefit from it too. So yes, be strict in who you allow on the forum. And a special place would be perfect. So that you won't be bothered by researchers if you don't want too. Tresspassing not allowed.

oh i made a power point against curing autism a little while back and asked for some quotes is this ok?

Amazing!

Hmm? Approval from whom?  

Help for the research community? I'm into that! Don't hesitate to mail me at gwynzkind@yahoo.co.uk to find out what autism really means...then kiss goodbye to any chance of getting a doctorate!

Gosh, autism research should involve talking to autistics??? That is a truly revolutionary concept!!!!!!!! But you wrote AS, didn't you? So only "mildly" autistics are worth talking to? Guess what Pippa; I'm autistic, I have none of the evident defects which would get me an AS diagnosis, and I didn't need a paper on Awares (a bum site; just read my posts there and see how they got universally ignored.) to point out the obvious! Come and debate with me and let me show you how easily this "defective retard" can demonstrate how much smarter I am than you.

Better yet, if you have the balls; copy this post to your professors, and have them come and debate with me? Ah but, anyone called Pippa wouldn't normally have balls? Actually, in this arena, a conscientious woman is likely to have a lot more balls than any (ahem!) "man" currently employed in autism research!

Really? Do please send a link to me at gwynzkind@yahoo.co.uk (yes I know it doesn't click; just paste into your "compose mail" section)

Actually Jeff (may I call you Jeff? You can call me Gwyn) even aspie sites are no refuge to those who really are autistic.

Actually, no , Jeff, they can't. Mainly because they are clueless, but finally because those few who actually figure out what's going on will find themselves without a voice or a job. If the establishment who control expenditure on "autism" research where motivated to inform the public about "neurodiversity", or whatever, they could have done so 50 years ago.

This starts to sound like an advert for Gestalt, a site based on suggestions I made years ago (which I intended as a group of real autistics, who could act as a reference for researchers) but which now consists of fakes and idiots who have no proven connection with autism.

"emic"? As for imploring people with "AS" to keep an open mind, how open is your mind to the possibility that the AS is just a conceit of stupid self-satisfied individuals who imagined they are perfect, and anyone different is defective?

As for your credentials as a "scientist", compare your approach to Jane Goodall and co, who made contact with the primates they intended to study, and the advances they made! Less than pristine; they were intrusive (but, as has been pointed out, less intrusive than shooting a chimp, so as to examine what's in it's stomach?) and got down and dirty, sometimes actually becoming involved in the social interactions of those they studied. In comparison, "autism experts" largely deny the very existence autistic adults like myself, and confine their "studies" to unformed youngsters who have not had the leisure to form their own opinions.

Dare I suggest, Jeff, that, compared to what real scientists in other fields do, the current efforts of all "autism experts" amounts to no more than trying to evaluate primate behavior, by restricting their studies to watching young chimps being trained for the circus?

What? Like not understanding what "spectrum" means?

Who us, "intelligent designer"? I noticed quotes from your post don't include:

Rush Limbaugh is an authority on autistic matters? Here's a translated quote from a real autistic; Adherence to authority is the greatest barrier to scientific advancement...(for the record, I don't accept his Theory of Relativity, and I don't expect he'd have minded)

I suppose it's another thread which "normals" can't answer?

Do note, however, that their research might help them understand us better, which in the end could become beneficial to all of us. I personally have no problem cooperating in any research if this will increase the understanding of AS among psychologists. Currently, that understanding is abhorent.

Very nice, person unnammed.

I have, personally and generally, a problem with establishment sponsored
"experts" whose only intent is to "justify" the removal of a "troublesome" minority, whose only crime is that they are different, and uniquely responsible for all of mankind's scientific and philosophical advancemants.

A good many advancements, perhaps (not "all"). Spectrumites aren't the only ones who think differently, btw. I largely agree with your take on "experts", though.

There are definitely assholes like that around, but I'm sure they aren't all like that... They can't be.

An immediate problem; this business of "spectrumites"!

I'm grateful to you guys who took the trouble to read my posts, and of course you're all right; most researchers do mean well, but they are the wrong people for the job, and amount to what David Ycke (do a google; I'm not absolutely sure of the spelling...and too tired to care) calls repeaters: people carefully selected for "scientific" careers according to their proven willingness  to accept authority, and not think "unconventionally", and who thus spend their entire careers just spouting what they've been spoon-fed in college, without ever wondering if it's true!

You guys may be excused for doing the same, but this plum pudding of unrelated (if you disagree, try to find any proven correlation between, say, ADHD, and NPD or NVLD...other than the evident fact they are not "normal", according to the establishment view) development disorders doesn't begin to resemble a spectrum, so why do you perpetuate this nonsense of being "on the spectrum" as if such a statement could have any useful meaning?

If you are just striving for unity, it's best to behave truthfully, acknowledging that a lot of people with development disorders of various kinds are in the same boat with true autistics (not a disorder; the historical use of the word is clear about this: it is quite literally a personality type, a different way if thinking) and are being shafted by the establishment (who like Hitler, are keen to get rid of not just the "Jews" he particularly despised, but also content to lose any "deviants" or undesireables; gypsies and paraplegics, in his case. Check out the bias in "official" pronouncements about "autism", and the way it is being systematically downgraded, and you'll see a clear parallel in the techniques Hitler's goons used to convince the German people to support their extermination...or at least make them indifferent! That's our biggest threat; for evil to succeed, all that's needed is the indifference of the masses).

Using the mendacious unscientific classifications imposed on the public at present, only supports the ongoing propaganda!

As for research, why don't these guys research back to pre-Kanner times and see how many others also borrowed the label, long before he is supposed to have invented it? He no more defined "autism" than did the guy who coined the phrase "norwegian rat" define Norwegians! He just used it as a descriptive label, to distinguish the development disorders he observed, from others (so Lorna Wing's use of "autism" as a general term for all such issues, is completely bonkers!) as, for example, did Eugene Bleuler use the label to distinguish a phase of his proposed schizophrenia (1912).

So only some of the science and technology came from "the spectrum"? You misread my meaning dude: Study the original meaning of autism (as described here, for example, in 1921:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/cont...n/77/3/417) and you'll see that, other than freak (sic) occurrences, man's claim to being Homo Sapiens, comes entirely from autism. Only those who are at least fairly strong in the autistic portion of their personality (as Aaron Rosanoff described it) can truly claim to be rational animals!

As for whether the guys who appear as researchers on this site are for real...did any of you guys note a response to any of my posts from Dr Jeff et al?