'we are all on the spectrum'

I agree to agree on this

Deepthought said:

It is important that this happens.

miaxx said:

Well, agree to disagree.

Maybe learn to treat this subject like as if being a three dimensional cuboid block where each person is discussing which side of it they are looking at it from ~ rather than as if arguing and having to agree or disagree that it is either square or rectangle shaped.

miaxx said:

To me, it's very invalidating and I'm allowed to feel that way.

In the context you mean the statement seems more 'discriminatory' ~ rather than 'invalidating', as that would defeat the purpose of non-autistic people using it to reduce the significance of our struggles so as to further normalise the significance of their own ~ as seeming to be more important, being that most people are either unconsciously, subconsciously or preconsciously suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, as involves socially fostered and personally adopted philosophies for competitively repressing and oppressing each other consciously, otherwise known as 'normalised abuse'.

So it is neither a case then of being allowed or disallowed to feel as you do about the subjective way the objective statement is misused and misinterpreted ~ given that before all else you feel singularly what you feel and everyone else likewise feels singularly what they feel, as stimulated us to come to terms with our then present feelings and previously intellectualised emotions on the matter ~ and thus we typed linguistic representations of which on this 'discussion' forum website.

I mean if you had not been allowed to feel the way that you do about this subject ~ you would not have started this thread, and none of it would have been read, felt, thought or written about, or discussed elsewhere. It is important that this happens.

agreed

Next to creating your own religion, riding a wave of of paranoia and exploiting conspiracy theory dupes must be one of the most lucrative things to do in the modern world. If you have no conscience, that is.

Absolutely. That would have taken great strength of character and conviction.  I find it hard to stomach the fact that Wakefield is still in the US finding an audience with people who have absolutely no scientific credentials or even interest - either religious fundamentalists or Trump supporters.  Apparently he's earning a good living at it.  

I have a 'second-hand connection' to Andrew Wakefield. I used to know one of his ex-PhD students. To his great credit, my old colleague point-blank refused to let his name be added to the author list of the original "Vaccines cause autism" Lancet paper. He told Wakefield that he had no confidence in the results or their interpretation. For a student to take this sort of principled stance with his supervisor took a lot of guts.

OMG what an awful thing for a child to come home with. 

The politicisation of science and all the vacuous idiocy around the concept of "we've had enough of experts" ... scary as all hell.  

I'm not sure that's specifically ASD although possibly some people on the spectrum are more suggestible and vulnerable when it comes to conspiracy theories etc? 

There are a lot of people (I've discovered) who haven't got the diagnosis they "want" and are cross about it.   Perhaps there's a connection.  

Critical thought doesn't seem to feature in education any longer, and people would rather believe something posted by a random gadgy on Twitter than a respected, highly qualiied doctor or scientist. As we now know, the brain (neuro typical or otherwise) prioritises negatives and so do social media algorythms.  

The worst situation is the tiny number of renegade scientists and Andrew Wakefield types; there are 124K qualified doctors in the UK, the overwhelming majority will be more or less competent. But in any group that size there'll be the occasional whack job who slips thro and the damage they can do is out of all proportion to their numbers.   

Don't get me started(!) 

It depends on context. If someone, who is uninformed, says "We are all on the spectrum", in order to minimise the difficulties of one or more autistic people, then it is inappropriate and damaging usage. Used by someone who is making a valid point about how clinical diagnoses somewhat artificially separate a continuum of human variation into  'significant' and 'insignificant' cases, then it is quite valid.

Like most aspects of human interaction, context is everything.

I think that there is a suspicion and a distrust of the scientific world, and of scientists, in the autistic community, and in the general population. A viewpoint that I do not share and have little sympathy for, being a retired biomedical scientist myself. My wife is a biochemist and one of our daughters was asked in primary school, "Are your mum and dad evil scientists?" Which goes far to make my point. 

Yep.   

PersonAnon said:

Trying to rid your mind of any hint or suspicion of bias-confirmation is ... challenging.

Er ~ rather. I always for that reason reserve the right or is it left to be wrong.

OK.  I'm at the stage of trying to drill down to the material that comes from an informed base and relate it to specific elements in my own report.  Quite sobering. 

I keep coming across academic papers which contain something that resonates sharply with my own situation, then wading thro piles of other stuff looking for wider sample sizes or some level of confirmation (or otherwise). 

I don't have your scientific background but I'm fairly used to handling data, peer-reviewed papers, and (to some extent) dry academic language.  Before getting a diagnosis I'd have considered myself mentally-prepared for that process.  However, I find that it takes on a different perspective when it interfaces with a deeply personal and subjective issue(!) 

Trying to read things with an objective frame of mind, uncluttered by emotional 'interference', is difficult, which is a new experience for me (I consider myself to be a pretty rigorous, data-led decision maker, at least as far as any of us can be).  Trying to rid your mind of any hint or suspicion of bias-confirmation is ... challenging.  I probably need to give it time and let some of this stuff mature.  

Thanks for your help, I will check all that out.  BW.   

Well, agree to disagree. To me, it's very invalidating and I'm allowed to feel that way.

Totally agree with you too

You are very welcome. If I remember correctly, the preprint suggested that some of the small common genetic variants are linked to higher than average intelligence. Also, that in some autistics, a high concentration of the common variants linked to high intelligence might have compensatory effects for possession of some of the rare larger genetic variants linked to intellectual disability. 

Thanks!

This wasn't the one I saw, but it has some overlap: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41525-018-0075-2

"Overall, our study confirms that both rare and common genetic variants contribute to the susceptibility to autism. Although, we identified previously known genetic causes for autism and pointed at new compelling candidate genes, we also showed a contribution of the common variants illustrated by the higher GPS-autism in individuals with autism (especially those with no ID [intellectual disability]) compared to controls. To date, in the literature, very few genes are identified in individuals diagnosed with autism and intact general intelligence. Based on the genes previously reported (NLGN3, NLGN4X, duplication of SHANK3) and the genes found in this study (RIMS4, KALRN, PLA2G4A), it seems that the proteins involved in autism without ID converge to different parts of the post-synapse and pre-synapse rather than to pathways such as gene regulation and chromatin remodeling, but this has to be confirmed on larger cohorts. Indeed, the main limitation of our study is the small number of individuals with autism. Several LGD variants affecting autism-risk genes such as GRIK2³⁶ or ASMT³⁷ were found exclusively or more frequently in individual with autism compared to controls, but a replication cohort is necessary to confirm the contribution of these variants in the susceptibility to autism in the Faroe Islands."

Essentially, what it is saying, that the preprint expanded on, is that the two genetic variation systems - (1) small and common genetic variations, and (2) large and rare genetic variations, are associated with autism without intellectual disability and autism with intellectual disability, respectively.

OK I'll have a scout around.  Thanks!

miaxx said:

The statement hugely invalidates autistic people's struggles  

Not in the least. Having autistic traits is a little like having vision problems, at a certain point the vision problems are severe enough for a person to be registered as sight impaired. That people exist who have vision problems that are not severe enough to be registered, does not invalidate the problems of people who are. In exactly the same manner, the existence of people who have autistic traits not severe enough for them to be given an ASC diagnosis does not invalidate the problems of those who have a diagnosis. You must be able to see the logic here. There are not two completely separate populations one entirely autistic, the other entirely allistic and never the twain shall meet. Complex neurodevelopmental conditions do not work like that. 

That sounds so great- what you wrote about the moral compass etc. 

Yes. Anything goes now, it doesn't matter who people hurt, what they say and do. There are no rules or moral compass anymore.

Hopefully the pendulum will swing back again one day...