Uta Frith on Radio 3 (Autism Awareness Day)

Hope said:

I fundamentally disagree with Cohen's assertion that the only difference between people with autism and those without the condition is the number of autism traits, and that we are all on the same continuum. I do think there is a 'qualitatitive break', as opposed to a simple 'matter of degree'. It is true that the traits of autism can occur in the wider public, but they are not necessarily there because of the same reasons or causes. A cough can be a symptom of a cold, influenza, or cancer, the same symptom but caused by a very different agent. I am not a Scientist, and of course I do not have the study resources that Cohen has at his disposal, but I am concerned that the continuum idea could trivialise and relativise what is a serious and often disabling condition.

I understand that autism is a spectrum, and that the non  autistic autistic brothers and sisters of those affected can show early markers of the condition in brain scans, yet not go on to develop the full blown condition. Autism is clearly genetic, and more research needs to be done on the differences between those with the full blown condition and those who are sub threshold and do not warrant a diagnosis.

I got rather irritated by a "professional" a while ago who kept saying "I think that we're all a little bit autistic".  To me this is a bit like saying "I think that we're all a little bit gigantic", because everybody has some height and gigantism is basically having lots of height.  But it doesn't mean that somebody 150 cm tall is "a little bit gigantic", or even that somebody 175 cm tall is a "little bit gigantic".

Regarding the focus on number of autistic traits, I was very surprised when I first came across it that in the Autism Quotient it is one point for one trait regardless of whether you strongly agreed/disagreed or just agreed/disagreed.  Preferring not to have a ticking clock but not really being fussed is very different to being unable to stand a ticking clock at all or even a watch.

In terms of a "qualitative break", in the book of his that I've read Baron-Cohen does make it clear that a formal diagnosis requires both having the autistic traits and for them to be having a significant effect.  (I may not have put that very well but I'm rushing a bit).

I will declare that I haven't watched the documentary (busy last night, planning to watch it on catch-up today) but I do find ["science"] documentarys, and TV programs in general, tend to simplify things or explain them badly.  I often get very frustrated with them doing so because it can be misleading.  They also tend to over-dramatise things (a Horizon episode on vitamin supplements that showed countless shots of a pill dissolving in a glass of water put me off the program for a long while) or edit them/present them in a "biased" way.  The message that was conveyed by the program could be as much to do with this as what the professionals actually think.

Hope said:

I fundamentally disagree with Cohen's assertion that the only difference between people with autism and those without the condition is the number of autism traits, and that we are all on the same continuum. I do think there is a 'qualitatitive break', as opposed to a simple 'matter of degree'. It is true that the traits of autism can occur in the wider public, but they are not necessarily there because of the same reasons or causes. A cough can be a symptom of a cold, influenza, or cancer, the same symptom but caused by a very different agent. I am not a Scientist, and of course I do not have the study resources that Cohen has at his disposal, but I am concerned that the continuum idea could trivialise and relativise what is a serious and often disabling condition.

I understand that autism is a spectrum, and that the non  autistic autistic brothers and sisters of those affected can show early markers of the condition in brain scans, yet not go on to develop the full blown condition. Autism is clearly genetic, and more research needs to be done on the differences between those with the full blown condition and those who are sub threshold and do not warrant a diagnosis.

I got rather irritated by a "professional" a while ago who kept saying "I think that we're all a little bit autistic".  To me this is a bit like saying "I think that we're all a little bit gigantic", because everybody has some height and gigantism is basically having lots of height.  But it doesn't mean that somebody 150 cm tall is "a little bit gigantic", or even that somebody 175 cm tall is a "little bit gigantic".

Regarding the focus on number of autistic traits, I was very surprised when I first came across it that in the Autism Quotient it is one point for one trait regardless of whether you strongly agreed/disagreed or just agreed/disagreed.  Preferring not to have a ticking clock but not really being fussed is very different to being unable to stand a ticking clock at all or even a watch.

In terms of a "qualitative break", in the book of his that I've read Baron-Cohen does make it clear that a formal diagnosis requires both having the autistic traits and for them to be having a significant effect.  (I may not have put that very well but I'm rushing a bit).

I will declare that I haven't watched the documentary (busy last night, planning to watch it on catch-up today) but I do find ["science"] documentarys, and TV programs in general, tend to simplify things or explain them badly.  I often get very frustrated with them doing so because it can be misleading.  They also tend to over-dramatise things (a Horizon episode on vitamin supplements that showed countless shots of a pill dissolving in a glass of water put me off the program for a long while) or edit them/present them in a "biased" way.  The message that was conveyed by the program could be as much to do with this as what the professionals actually think.