General Autism Discussion

Bingo.

Making choices for others is very easy to find problems with.

edited 29th May '16 9:27:03 AM by war877

It's also necessary for society to function.

I have no problem with people admitting to taking emergency action. I have a problem with people further justifying the activity beyond the rational for their own comfort. Admit that you are doing it because you have no choice, and if you did it when you had a choice it would be immoral.

Calling something that gets rid of autism a cure is an example of justifying emergency action beyond the degree to which it is justified.

edited 29th May '16 6:45:29 PM by war877

This depends on which moral framework you are using; most systems of morality consider it acceptable to limit a person's freedom and override an individual's choice for the good of society as a whole in situations where that individual is in some way deleterious to society. In the case of the most severe cases of autism, we are talking about people who are simply incapable of functioning independently of a caretaker.

If we can find a way to bring those people up to the level of higher functioning autistics, we absolutely can and should encourage that intervention, should it prove possible without excessive negative side effects. It should not be done without the consent of the individual in question if they are legally capable of giving consent, and in cases where they are not, that decision obviously falls to the primary caretaker in most cases. What I'm in favor of is the same status as pretty much all extant psychoactive medications; not forcing people to take them unless they are a threat to themselves or others, but putting it forward as an option, and encouraging it for those who cannot function in society without it.

edited 29th May '16 6:56:22 PM by CaptainCapsase

I agree. To explain the argument I made on the previous page in the context you are introducing:

Throwing a person in jail is a cure for civil disobedience. Throwing a person in jail does not significantly alter their behaviour, desires, or opinions. According to my last argument, therefore, throwing a person in jail is not a big problem. It doesn't really matter if the person in charge is human, fallible, biased, or possessed of an unhealthy philosophy. Killing someone is also a cure for civil disobedience. Based on my model of the afterlife, killing someone completely alters a person's behaviour, desires and opinions. It destroys the person. I have a problem with one of these cures, and not the other.

I am not talking about side effects when talking about a cure for autism. I am talking about primary effects. When we are talking about curing autism, we are talking about curing a person of some of their behaviour. How we do this is by altering their desires and changing how they see the world.

To get a frame of reference, are you opposed to the use of antidepressants? Antipsychotics? Psychostimulants?

That as well; what's your (war877's) opinion on behavioral therapy?

edited 30th May '16 12:30:52 PM by CaptainCapsase

Have you been reading about the Scientology version of psychological therapy? <suspicious>

Because therapy ain't no cure for anything. Nor an attempt to wave a book and change somebody any specific way. That kind of "therapy" is called "quackery" or "torture".

No one is suggesting, to the best of my knowledge, doing anything to anyone without their consent, or the consent of their guardian if they cant make their own decisions. For some, the set of symptoms we call "Autism" is something they are proud of and wish to keep. They are going to be allowed to. But for others, those symptoms, or similar ones, have been barriers to effective functioning, and a source of suffering, and the individuals themselves would like to reduce those symptoms. They should be able to get what they want.

By the way, they've started using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as an experimental cure for autism. According to John Elder Robinson (also the author of "Look Me In The Eye") it apparently works. So, not such a hypothetical question anymore.

I'd heard about that being used to potentially treat depression and seizure disorders, interesting to see its being applied to ASD.

I'm not sure if everyone is okay with the idea of guardians being able to make a cure desicion for thouse unable to make such desicion themselves.

That more or less the standard as far as any form of treatment goes, at least in America, though I doubt it would differ greatly internationally; for people who are incapable of giving consent, ie comatose people or babies (and all minors technically), medical decisions may be made on their behalf by their legal guardian.

edited 30th May '16 3:55:29 PM by CaptainCapsase

It works but temporarily. I heard this guy speak at a conference I attended.

@CC: To answer your question, I have no problem with the voluntary use of any of those medications. Or the emergency use of medications.

What I may have a problem with is the mischaracterisation of those things as something they are not. I do not think psychoactive substances should be taken casually.

I am one of those. I have unusual opinions on responsibility and care and the role of parent/guardian.

As a matter of ethics and practicality, legal guardians do not have unlimited authority when it comes to making such decisions. Especially when they are guardians to older people.

Behavioural therapy. I have a complicated position. Normal therapy, I think it is fine, because unlike substances or treatments, it is presented to the person, not forced into a person. A suggested therapy must be understood by the patient, and accepted, truthfully, to work. A medication just works the moment it reaches the brain. Because of this implied consent, normal therapy is always fine.

That said, when behaviour modification practices are non-optional, as is usually the case with disciplining a child, then I say it is no longer fine. Disciplining a child only makes sense in an emergency, unless the discipline was consented to ahead of time.

Behavioural therapy isn't a case of forcing anything. You know why? Because top-down, cookie-cutter, but-thou-must programmes... don't actually work as therapy — and, research in cognitive science has downright shown that: repeatedly. The times you hear about that kind of approach, you are hearing of failures... usually due to the field or individual teacher/ therapist forgetting to engage properly with the patient, client or student. Which, unfortunately, happens: institutions and insurance agencies don't always have the end user primarily in mind. -_-

Those top-heavy approaches are wonderful if you want to induce depression, anxiety, psychosis or other forms of long-term degradation, though. :/

It's not the problem with the principles of cognitive behavioural therapy, but the people using it. Any tool can get misused, either intentionally or accidentally.

In short: welcome to the social part of "psychosocial": it cuts both ways. The cultural background of those treating a condition often influences how they go about treating it and the mistakes they make doing it.

edited 31st May '16 1:35:42 AM by Euodiachloris

-[snip]- It seems we are in hostile agreement somehow.

I was comparing medication where you inject it and it works, to therapies where you tell a person about it, and it only works if they agree with it.

edited 31st May '16 2:01:44 AM by war877

The same issues crop up with the injection one. :/ Depending on the practitioner, you can get the situation where the patient keeps getting something given to them even though they find the effects either less than helpful... to downright debilitating. But, because "this is the standard, approved method", alternatives which could work better with the individual aren't sought. -_-

That's something else. Giving someone the wrong medication being a thing is evidence in favour of my earlier argument.

By works, I mean it has an influence on who a person is. Telling a person to do something works differently. They, rather than chemicals, must be the driving force of change. This is like, impossible, if the patient disagrees with the therapy.

For a lighter topic, my coworker find my taste in coffee weird. I have a penchant for mixing coffee using canned coffee and box milk. My latest attempt is mixing black coffee with chocolate milk 1:1 which I called "black mocha" for its bitter-than-usual taste.

Has anyone has similar unusual ways to enjoy drinks?

More and more scientific evidence is coming out that autism is really a collection of (genetic) traits that, when they come together, are considered "autism". That's why two people can have autism while not having any of the same autism-associated genes as each other. They'll even have different forms of it, with different symptoms: one person may have an unusually strong sense of touch, for instance, and the other has a rather normal one, but instead a very sensitive sense of hearing where even a dog barking a block away hurts their ears (yes, cases of autism this extreme have been known to exist).

So if autism were to be "cured", what would that entail? Eliminating only the genes associated with things like a super-sensitive sense of touch? While keeping the ones associated with certain forms of intelligence? However, in some cases, these forms of intelligence can originate from something arguably disabling, like obsession. Will we really start genetically engineering obsession out of existence? That would mean drying up a pool of potentially damn skilled employees, and people who can solve humanity's problems in various areas, and invent new things. Obsessives built much of society, after all.

Here's something not focused on: what's it like to be a member of a very recognized minority, and a very misunderstood one, at the same time? To put it another way, what's it like to be both gay and autistic?

Just one guy's experience of course, but worth a read.

Regarding his idiosyncracies, I remember getting punished for some of those. My parents knew I was autistic, but they didn't know what autism was, other than the reason I was unable to talk at the age of 3 and would refuse to look at people, and pushed away any attempts to give me a hug. But they didn't understand having very sensitive hearing or sense of touch, or why I was awful at sports no matter how much I was pushed into them, and so on.

edited 31st May '16 10:15:45 AM by BonsaiForest

I learned to read at age 2 and was reading Fantastic Mr Fox at age 4

My older brother (non-autistic) learned to read at age 3. I learned at age 4.

There's a video, Jake, Math Prodigy Proud of his Autism about a boy who was very "low functioning" (yes, I know the controversy around that term, but bear with me here) when he was little, then somehow almost spontaneously became very high functioning in elementary school age and a physics genius. It's said that no noticeable traces of his autism exist; however, you can kinda see a little of the eye contact thing (he has to look away to think before he gives an answer), plus his only hobby on Earth is his obsession with math. He also relates pretty much exclusively to adults, not other kids his age.

Scientists still have no clue what makes some people with severe autism almost magically "bloom" into Aspies, and others do not. I was called a big success story as a kid, but really, was I? Or was it just random dumb luck that favored me and not the other autistics at the same center I went to?

I learned to talk sometime around when I was 2 or so. I didn't really read books without pictures until later, though.