• Replies 83 replies
  • Subscribers 101 subscribers
  • Views 2461 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

BBC In Depth: the ongoing battle to define autism

B

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdew81wd2y8o

Warning: unsettling especially for those late diagnosed.

Parents

  • What if... there turned out to be more autistics than NT's? Yippee!!!!!!!

  • in reply to Marianne72
    That thought has crossed my mind several times, too! But looking at the numbers, it presents a really fascinating 'what if.'
    Right now, the best educated guess for formal autism prevalence sits between 1% and 3%, while the broader umbrella of invisible neurominorities is estimated at 15% to 20% of the global population. So even if everyone unmasked, we wouldn't outnumber neurotypicals.
    However, we don't actually need to be the majority to change society. According to a landmark study in Science by Dr Damon Centola, a minority group just needs to reach a 25% tipping point to create a dramatic shift where the majority rapidly adopts new social norms.
    Since neurodivergence sits just under that mark at 15–20%, the most practical way to bridge the gap to 25% is through neurotypical allies. The more people who feel safe enough to be diagnosed and live openly, the more we demonstrate our shared humanity—and the closer we get to pushing that tipping point over the line.
    Of course, to get there, people actually need access to timely identification. I deeply hope that current systemic pressures and funding cuts to assessment pathways are short-lived. Restricting the pathway to a diagnosis doesn't make neurodivergence disappear; it just forces it back into hiding, keeping our community away from that vital 25% threshold.
  • in reply to Phased
    Reflecting on what I wrote above  , I realise looking at macro population statistics can sound a bit academic and detached when the ground-level reality is so brutal right now.
    Talking about reaching a 25% tipping point doesn't change the fact that people are currently stuck on five or six-year NHS waiting lists just trying to get the validation they need. That's why the point about AI tools speeding up assessments by removing administrative backlogs is so vital. We can't build visibility or allyship if the systemic gatekeeping keeps slamming the door on people before they even get to the start line.
  • in reply to Peter1970

    hehe - possibly too much information but you post has just reminded me that I need to visit the loo...

    You have every right to be suspicious of "body language experts".  I should know as, in some ways, I made a career out of it.

    Somewhat ironic given that I get so engrossed in things that i don't even notice what my own digestive system needs are!

  • in reply to Phased

    Yeah, that scares the cr*p out of me a bit Joy I have always been very suspicious of "body language experts" 

  • in reply to Peter1970

    Understood  - those AI systems viewing facial and eye movements reminded of the science fiction of "Blade Runner".

    W/r/to those "tells" I was especially interested and alluding to this scoping review https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12620671/  there are also individual studies worth looking at -

    "digital medicine" is another way of putting a finger on the pulse :-)

  • in reply to Phased

    Sorry, I can't seem to get the "quote" option to work but the AI response to the turnip question is exactly what I would have expected to a text input query. I was referring more to the logic behind the interface and the programming. The AI can only process what it understands as processable. Something like a nod of the head or a physical reaction to a given question would not play a part in how an AI would process a response because it can't see it. Slight changes in facial expression even previous behaviour that an AI would not be aware of.

    In saying that I am also a big science fiction fan so I obviously can't rule out some type of fully autonomous artificial being in the future but I think we are a fair bit away from that at the moment

Reply
  • in reply to Phased

    Sorry, I can't seem to get the "quote" option to work but the AI response to the turnip question is exactly what I would have expected to a text input query. I was referring more to the logic behind the interface and the programming. The AI can only process what it understands as processable. Something like a nod of the head or a physical reaction to a given question would not play a part in how an AI would process a response because it can't see it. Slight changes in facial expression even previous behaviour that an AI would not be aware of.

    In saying that I am also a big science fiction fan so I obviously can't rule out some type of fully autonomous artificial being in the future but I think we are a fair bit away from that at the moment

Children