The issue is the intent of low key excluding a who could innovate and pose a treat to the status quo. Although researchers are well intentioned their sponsors and grants are usually not that completely free and independent. And created with Freud’s nephew I forget the name who thinks that all humans just need to be fed information. As that’s true for neurotypical people that usually if you don’t say you have to learn something rarely will show initiative unless if they believe they’ll gain something. It’s not true at all for neuro diverse. I’m highly intelligent but never had chance of a formal education and the lack of certificates and access itself it’s exclusionary, specially in developing countries
It seems like the always present problem in autism research: what exactly are we measuring and why? It looks like they're seeing a 'deviation from the norm' as the best way of thinking about autism, and lumping a lot of experiences together as signifiying autism's core, or something like that. Self injurious behaviour isn't, in my view, something 'baked into' an autistic person but a response to stress, a way to self manage distress. Likewise 'mood disorder's that they talk about.
As an autistic person this study doesn't have any real meaning for me. But then it's not really meant for me I guess, more for gene researchers?
I agree it's hit the headlines in a really misleading way, it doesn't say anything about subtypes of autism. They're just looking for ways to categorise a mass of data to support future research. I think.
I share your concerns about eugenics too. I'm not really sure why it's seen as important to identify genetic 'causes'. Especially when the picture is so, as they say, hetrongenous. We don't get focussed on research about the genetics of food tastes, or great working memory, or shoe size so why autism? It's hard not to conclude that it's because of a desire to be rid of those pesky deviant autism people so we'd not be so much bother. I think we are right to be concerned, and to stay alert about this.
The concern about selective abortions is real (especially considering this is new science, and parents will be making horrific decisions based off fragile, faulty science), but I also think the current ASD system isn't working for us either. Putting non-verbal Autistics who need life long care into the same figurative basket as Autistics who can live independent lives is causing so much unecessary chaos and in-fighting within the Autism community. It's good to question the motives and intent of this study, but I think Autism subtypes would on the whole be helpful going forward. As someone who would be considered a "medium support" Autistic, I know I would benefit from that subtype being more well-known. Maybe disability service providers would quit ignoring my shortcomings because I have a few erceived strengths (and denying me much-needed supports because of it).
thank you for such a detailed critique
The issue is the intent of low key excluding a who could innovate and pose a treat to the status quo. Although researchers are well intentioned their sponsors and grants are usually not that completely free and independent. And created with Freud’s nephew I forget the name who thinks that all humans just need to be fed information. As that’s true for neurotypical people that usually if you don’t say you have to learn something rarely will show initiative unless if they believe they’ll gain something. It’s not true at all for neuro diverse. I’m highly intelligent but never had chance of a formal education and the lack of certificates and access itself it’s exclusionary, specially in developing countries
It seems like the always present problem in autism research: what exactly are we measuring and why? It looks like they're seeing a 'deviation from the norm' as the best way of thinking about autism, and lumping a lot of experiences together as signifiying autism's core, or something like that. Self injurious behaviour isn't, in my view, something 'baked into' an autistic person but a response to stress, a way to self manage distress. Likewise 'mood disorder's that they talk about.
As an autistic person this study doesn't have any real meaning for me. But then it's not really meant for me I guess, more for gene researchers?
I agree it's hit the headlines in a really misleading way, it doesn't say anything about subtypes of autism. They're just looking for ways to categorise a mass of data to support future research. I think.
I share your concerns about eugenics too. I'm not really sure why it's seen as important to identify genetic 'causes'. Especially when the picture is so, as they say, hetrongenous. We don't get focussed on research about the genetics of food tastes, or great working memory, or shoe size so why autism? It's hard not to conclude that it's because of a desire to be rid of those pesky deviant autism people so we'd not be so much bother. I think we are right to be concerned, and to stay alert about this.
The concern about selective abortions is real (especially considering this is new science, and parents will be making horrific decisions based off fragile, faulty science), but I also think the current ASD system isn't working for us either. Putting non-verbal Autistics who need life long care into the same figurative basket as Autistics who can live independent lives is causing so much unecessary chaos and in-fighting within the Autism community. It's good to question the motives and intent of this study, but I think Autism subtypes would on the whole be helpful going forward. As someone who would be considered a "medium support" Autistic, I know I would benefit from that subtype being more well-known. Maybe disability service providers would quit ignoring my shortcomings because I have a few erceived strengths (and denying me much-needed supports because of it).
Well said, David. I hadn’t heard of this study; thank you for sharing the information.