Dear Aspies, auties, autistics and cousins and NT's,

I'm writing a scientific paper about autism. On the website I found that AFF agrees on autism having a genetic base. I'm very interesting in finding out more, since so far I haven't been able to find facts supporting this claim. (I am aware this is the mainstream idea.)
In my opinion so far the 'social construct of autism' theory makes much more sense.

So far I've dig into:
The history of Asperger-syndrome, (epi)genetics, causes, the history of the DSM, introduction of AS into the DSM-IV, the removal of AS in the upcoming DSM-5, braindevelopment, problems with underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis, (sub)clinicity, social acceptance, etcetera. And ofcourse the maintheme: Heritability.

I'm reading up on the forums on the website, but I'm hoping some of you will help me with some additional suggestions that aren't posted yet.

All suggestions/tips are welcome.
Thank you very much in advance!

Okay, I'll bite.  What is the "social construct theory" of autism?
Alison

Thank you for biting.

More info:
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7433/226.2
http://autism.about.com/b/2011/07/04/the...struct.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_a..._construct
http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.c...exist.html

write your paper on something else

What about LFA?

What about LFA or children who act low-functioning but end up being high-functioning as an adult?

I will include this as well, but LFA's have many more problems functioning (e.g. comorbidity - there's a huge documented list) if you compare them with e.g. subclinical Aspergers.

Good example.
A diagnosis isn't necessarily lifelong, although it's called a "lifelasting development disorder."
So why/how does someone get a LFA diagnosis when he's younger and grows up (either with help or on his own) and functions well eventually?

This is a problem the biochemical (genetic) model has.

Until you accept the fact that Autists including Aspies have been around for tens of thousands of years. Accept that there is nothing wrong with us. That we just are.

Then you cannot understand the correct direction to take with your paper.

The social construct theory makes sense, it is pretty much in line with a lot of opinion on this site and (IMO) with the founding principles.

That Wikipedia page sure has a lot of whacko theories! Very amusing!

And there is no reason that I can think of why autism cannot be both a social construct and genetic. Think of it this way - autism was known about 40 years ago, but most aspies would have been considered simply quirky and odd, or lazy and/or disorganized and/or antisocial, but not disabled or having a disorder. Now aspies are considered to have a diagnosable disorder. A neurotype that was once considered "normal" earlier in my lifetime is now considered to be almost a separate branch of humanity by some. Social constructs change, but the genes that cause some people to be different are still around.  

By the way, I'm not sure if this thread falls into the category of "research", but you should check with one of the admins before you use this site to try to gather info for research or study. That would be Gareth (owner) or Pikajedi3 (most active administrator).

I think you completely misunderstand me here.
Ofcourse there's nothing wrong if it's a social construct. It means society puts a label on you.
People like Simon Baron Cohen already prefer using terms like 'autism condition' to 'autism disorder' and call it a 'different cognitive style'.

In terms of theories it IS possible that autism is both genetic ánd a social construct, but that's a huge amount of proof you need to back up that claim.

The view from behaviour and (dys)functioning makes more sense. But then again: What is normal? No one is really 'normal' in a statistical way, let alone whatever benchmark you use.
Normal daily activity ? Normal books to read ? Normal sports, hobby's ? Normal tv-shows to watch ? Normal music to listen to ? Normal friends ? I think you get the point.

"...simply quirky and odd, or lazy and/or disorganized and/or antisocial, but not disabled or having a disorder. " This isn't autism-unique, and we don't consider all behaviour having a genetic basis.

Thanks for the tip, I'll contact the admins.

Looks like I posted in the wrong forum - I'll try to get this moved.

Why do we need a huge amount of proof that autism is both genetic and a social construct?

Both are valid ways of looking at autism, and there is obviously evidence for both ways of looking at autism.

And in no way are they conflicting or mutually exclusive ways of looking at autism.

What evidence is there for the theory that autism is a social construct and is there any evidence that the genetics and social construct views are mutually exclusive to any degree at all?

Evidence for a genetic link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7792363

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/0...for_mo.php

http://www.jpost.com/Health/Article.aspx?id=240963

I had a quick flick through those, didn't read them in any depth. I have little doubt that the more autism is studied, the more evidence will be found that autism is genetic.

Google: "autism evidence genetic", like I just did, that should keep you busy for a while.