General Autism Discussion

Advanced 3-D facial imaging may aid in early detection of autism: "Autism is a spectrum of closely related disorders diagnosed in patients who exhibit a shared core of symptoms, including delays in learning to communicate and interact socially. Early detection of autism in children is the key for treatment. Using advanced 3-D imaging and statistical analysis techniques, researchers have identified facial measurements in children with autism that may lead to screening tools for young children and provide clues to genetic causes."

How effective is the treatment?

Century-old drug reverses autism-like symptoms in fragile X mouse model: "Researchers previously reported that a drug used for almost a century to treat trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness, reversed environmental autism-like symptoms in mice. Now, a new study suggests that a genetic form of autism-like symptoms in mice are also corrected with the drug, even when treatment was started in young adult mice."

Hey people, is there room for another?

Sure. We could use a lot more participation here.

Two-minute imaging test for autism in the works

"Our brains have a perspective-tracking response that monitors, for example, whether it’s your turn or my turn," said study author Professor Read Montague at the Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute.

(...)

In a subsequent study, the researchers asked athletes to watch a brief clip of a physical action, such as kicking a ball or dancing, while undergoing functional MRI. The athletes were then asked either to replay the clips in their mind, like watching a movie, or to imagine themselves as participants in the clips.

"The athletes had the same responses as the game participants from our earlier study," Montague said. "The middle cingulate cortex was active when they imagined themselves dancing — in other words, when they needed to recognize themselves in the action."

In this case, the researchers also found that in participants with autism spectrum disorder, the more subdued the response, the more severe the symptoms.

In the current study, children were shown 15 images of themselves and 15 images of a child matched for age and gender for four seconds per image in a random order.

Like the control adults, the control children had a high response in the middle cingulate cortex when looking at their own pictures. In contrast, children with autism spectrum disorder had a significantly diminished response.

Importantly, the researchers could detect this difference in only a single image. The single-image part is important, Montague points out, as children with autism cannot stay in the scanner for long, so the test must be quick.

I just think this is limited and flawed, at least from what I gather. Only on children, not adults? I was about to make a comment about how a high-functioning individual can gradually learn more and more about sports and rules to the point where they can instinctively imagine themselves as participants in the same way that other people can. I mean, it sounds to me like behavior that can be learned, thus making the study useless for someone who's learned that behavior and picked up on that thinking to a degree.

I may of course be missing something here. But it also seems very limited, and possibly useless for high-functioning adults and teens. Still, it's a start. I just don't want them to act like this is the be-all end-all of testing for autism through brain scanning, but instead start looking for other ways to test for autism, including in high-functioning adults.

Just so you know Quoteblock is back, so you don't need to use green font anymore.

Yeah, I could see the method described having some flaws (the fact that it only seems to have been tested on kids in particular), but I guess if it's one of many ways to test then it can't be too harmful.

The research study seems to be more about the development of the ability to differentiate between self and others than any knowledge of athletics. If true, it implies that the middle cingulate cortex facilitates insight into one's role in the environment, and that people with autism are lacking in this function.

RE: Gluten, etc

Way I'd read it, autism and autism spectrum disorders tend to be comorbid with some stomach/brain issues regarding how gluten (and sometimes casein, a protein in dairy products) are processed. In my case, I basically get drunk, complete with hangover the next day.

RE: Autism and supervillainy

The character you're looking for is the Post-Crisis version of Black Manta, one of the two top-contenders for Aquaman's archenemy, and one of the most Unfortunate Implications laden characters in comic book history. Over the course of his publication career he's been a Malcolm Xerox and and "autistic"—and by autistic I mean a psychopathic mass murderer who displays no empathy for others, hates everybody and anybody who inconveniences him in the slightest, and whose most infamous act was killing Aquaman's infant son.

" Y'see, deep down, in my most secret heart of hearts, I'm still a totally depraved sonofabitch whose main goal in life is to watch you die. Slowly and painfully. Just like your kid."

Seems like their version of "autism" has nothing to do with reality, and just feels like they wanted a fancy label to toss onto their character.

I'm reminded of Bill Watterson's famous quote: "You can make your superhero a psychopath, you can draw gut-splattering violence, and you can call it a 'graphic novel,' but comic books are still incredibly stupid."

As a reader of comic books I'd say that's unfair. Are some comics absolutely terrible dreck, loaded with sexism, racism, toxic machismo, and terrible stereotypes about the mentally ill? Absolutely, and you won't hear me defend those that are. At the same time, are some comics remarkably progressive, and, at times, ahead of the curve on social issues? Also, yes. Comics are like any other medium—there's good ones, bad ones, and the hideously ugly.

For the record, later writers realized how badly their predecessors had screwed up with Manta. His black separatist rhetoric (which he'd said, but never acted on in any meaningful way) was retconned into an effort at exploiting his own people for money and support, and Aquaman later used some temporary magical powers to rewire Manta's brain, curing his autism, but failing to stop him from being irredeemably evil. Now if they'd just ditch the name (African-American characters with "black" in the name are a legacy from a less enlightened era; the JLA TV show called him "Devil-Ray" and I'd support a shift in that direction) he'd be a more or less acceptable character.

For the record, I would have no problem with a genuinely autistic supervillain in a comic book. There's nothing wrong with an evil character who happens to be autistic. Where I have problems is when a character is evil because they are autistic, as was the case with Manta.

edited 17th Jan '15 10:57:32 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

True. I think Watterson was referring to comics that tried wayyy too hard to get people to take them seriously by being all grimdark. So I'd agree with his quote if we're talking about those ones in particular.

I too would like to see a good portrayal of an evil character with autism, but only after we've seen more positive, detailed portrayals of autism. There's a lot of fear around autism, and let's not forget we live in a time just after Elliot Rodger and Adam Lanza. Whether they had autism or not (I'd heard both actually were diagnosed) is less relevant than whether or not the average person thinks they did. So for now, I'd rather heal the rift.

Create positive portrayals now; create the villains later once society has become more accepting.

Eh, I'm of the opinion that whatever the character's morality, more representation of a minority is always a good thing—provided that said representation is nuanced and fair (which a Lanza/Rodger knockoff would not likely be). Of course if your work is going to portray a member of a minority as being evil, I would also hope that elsewhere in the story (or at least elsewhere within your body of work as a whole) you have a positive portrayal of a character from a similar minority background.

Personally, I'd like to see more portrayals of people on the mild end the spectrum in fiction. If only so that when I tell people I'm on the spectrum, the immediate reaction isn't "Oh, you mean like Sheldon?" No. I'm not a selfish manchild who is here for your amusement.

edited 17th Jan '15 11:30:05 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

I personally felt that he was called "Black Manta" because of his Powered Armour, but I guess that shows how much I'm aware of. I suppose they could always rename him Devil Ray if there are too many Unfortunate Implications, it's far from a bad name. Anyway...

I myself get the sort of reaction from people that think having AS is like The Imitation Game (or something else before it, I don't really remember), I've never had Sheldon referred to but could understand how that's annoying.

edited 17th Jan '15 12:13:35 PM by captainmarkle

Most early black characters in comics had "black" in the name somewhere. Black Panther, Black Lightning, Black Manta, etc, etc. The reason why The Falcon is considered fairly important in terms of African-American representation in comics is because he was an early character who didn't have his ethnicity referenced in his name. As for Manta, he explicitly stated when his mask came off for the first time that his name was connected to his skin colour: "Why did you think I called myself Black Manta". These days I'm sure they do try and make it out to be a reference to his armour, but the implications are still there. Though I suppose that's not really relevant to this thread in the way that his "autism" was.

Sheldon's usually the one who gets referenced in my experience, due to the popularity of The Big Bang Theory. I've also seen members of the AS community online try to "claim" him as one of their own, and the actor's claims, at certain points, that the character is on the spectrum don't help. Which given how deeply negative a human being the character is, doesn't make me very happy. Hell, even if he wasn't, there'd still be an unpleasant element of "let's all laugh at the autistics" going on.

Sheldon just annoys me anyway, though given the whole *name of shitty novel loosely related to Mass Effect deleted* cockup he's downright tolerable. I guess it might be people searching for some much-needed representation?

edited 17th Jan '15 1:08:58 PM by captainmarkle

Probably. I also wouldn't be surprised if it's a case of some misconstruing "people think he's funny" as "people being accepting of difference". My issue with that show is that it pretty much exists to mock difference, using the socially handicapped as fodder for third-rate humour.

The movies listed on Hollywood and Aspergers show some nice sympathetic portrayals, though one commenter says their adult son is resistant to his diagnosis, and would be depressed if he saw such fictional portrayals of high-functioning autism that focus on the disability part of it. However, the fact that it is a disability needs to be understood. Along with how.

Here's my thing—I don't want to see a film where the entire focus is on people on the spectrum. What I'd like to see is for more people on the spectrum to appear in films, TV shows, etc, as members of the ensemble cast, whose problems are treated exactly the same way that everyone else's are. Same goes for most other minorities, whether we're talking ethnicity, religion, or social/mental/physical handicaps.

I'll admit that I tend to laugh off or make a number of AS jokes (my non-autistic dad does not as much), but that's mainly if they're mocking common perceptions, e.g. Tim Minchin's mocking tabloid perspectives.
Tim: "If you get this vaccine, you will get cancer and die, or you will develop autism and you won't like hugs!"
That's the difference between Tim Minchin and Sheldon of TBBT. One mocks incorrect perspectives, the other is possibly mocking a condition.

Nice; I might bookmark it and maybe give some of those a watch. It'd give me a break from Empire's 500 best film list, which I'm not that far through . Sad to hear the son is reluctant to accept his diagnoses, but I suppose it takes time in some cases.

More as part of the ensemble cast would be good, particularly in shows where young people are watching. Shows like Korra have been pushing at boundaries for a while now, so it's hopefully possible.

edited 17th Jan '15 2:07:07 PM by captainmarkle

More variety in portrayal would also be good. While most people on the spectrum will have a few traits in common, we're not clones. Yet every supposedly autistic character I've seen in film or television has conformed to a more or less recognizable pattern.

Though something else that bothers me is when people try to claim a character is on the spectrum when there's another explanation provided in-universe. Examples would include K from Power Rangers RPM and Near from Death Note. K was raised in a government facility that never let her go outside. Near grew up in a program that was meant to turn people into replacements for another person. There is no need to reach for Asperger's, or any other mental condition to explain their behaviour.

Again, I'd put that down to desire for representation.

I'd like to see works of fiction that sometimes mock the arbitrary social rules that non-autistics follow, that autistics often don't know.

Like, when Family Guy showed some teenage girls talking in the school bathroom, saying "She's from the West Side, which is suddenly important for some reason," and basically mocking the dumb teenage rules for popularity and how illogical they are.

It would be great to see that done from the perspective of showing an autistic looking down upon stupid rules. Not in an "autistics are better than those illogical non-autistics" kind of way (which would be a disaster), but rather in a sort of "aren't these particular rules stupid?" kind of way. The rules that actually are important, that the autistic doesn't understand, could be portrayed more sensitively.

I still think it's bad form. Of course I also think that claiming X character is gay/bi/trans/whatever when they are explicitly not is also bad form. There's nothing wrong with saying that you identify with a character's struggles, or with the way they present themselves, but when you say "and therefore, all evidence to the contrary aside, this character is exactly like me" I start to have a problem.

I'll note it bugs me a lot less when people do it to characters where there is no explanation for their behaviour. There's a long-running fan theory that Amuro Ray may be somewhere on the spectrum. I don't know that I agree with that—I certainly don't invest any of my time or energy either way—but since no explanation for his very odd behaviour is given, it's at least a claim that can reasonably be made. It's also one I understand a lot better than the people trying to claim Sheldon as One Of Us—at least Amuro, were he on the spectrum, would be a positive portrayal.

edited 17th Jan '15 2:56:47 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar