[BritishShivans]

As for Bats, I'm quite aware that Aspergers is related to Autism. That however does not mean they are the same ****ing thing, and labeling Autism as being Aspergers or Aspergers as Autism is a stupid and most certainly idiotic idea, as they might share the same issues or traits, they are two completely different problems to each other, and both require a different approach.

Apparently the psychological community disagrees, as 'Aspergers' has been eliminated as a separate concept. As of this December, it's all positions on the autism spectrum under the DSM V.

I have no dog in this fight since I'm nowhere near the part of the scientific community that deals with these things, and I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but my understanding is that Asperger's as a separate diagnosis has ceased to exist. Anyone with the diagnosis would, I guess, be relabeled with high-functioning autism?

I should also mention that I'm particularly wary of America's scientists/doctors/psychologists talking about autism. Autism Speaks, a particularly notorious group responsible for spreading large quantities of misinformation is basically the public face for autism over there, and thus there is a worrying possibility that they may ruin things over there.

I don't know about your scientific community stuff, though. Could you send me your sources (if you have them), Battuta? I'm interested. 

[Mika]

Well, my question was targeted at higher functioning autists and Aspergers, since the definition between them is sketchy for me. I have met and studied with people who had Asperger's syndrome, and do recognize them relatively quickly. But when I read about higher functioning autists, they seem to integrate completely to the society around their 40s and 50s, and maintain the position that there actually never was anything particularly wrong with them to begin with. They are just built in a different way, and the rest of the society does a catch up and starts to realize this later, and accepts it. I'm not sure whether this holds with Asperger's. So the difference isn't really that clear to me, and it seems that when somebody is talking about higher functioning autists, they are talking about Aspergers and vice versa.

I find it very interesting that the neural sciences have got such a boost in the beginning of this century. It may not be falsely said that 2000s will increase the fundamental understanding of human itself. Scientifically speaking, James Fallon's speeches in YouTube were excellent, saying that you really don't have two similar sort of personalities, while politics would need that for legalization. I'm very grateful that this understanding about completely different natures is starting to spread around, and hopefully will some day be visible in the education system.

However, the question I have raised earlier to the psychologists remains; are the narcisstic and autistic personality types polar opposites of each other? Their personality traits somehow suggest that to me, but that may be a little far-fetched.

[Lorric]

As for Bats, I'm quite aware that Aspergers is related to Autism. That however does not mean they are the same ****ing thing, and labeling Autism as being Aspergers or Aspergers as Autism is a stupid and most certainly idiotic idea, as they might share the same issues or traits, they are two completely different problems to each other, and both require a different approach.

Apparently the psychological community disagrees, as 'Aspergers' has been eliminated as a separate concept. As of this December, it's all positions on the autism spectrum under the DSM V.

I have no dog in this fight since I'm nowhere near the part of the scientific community that deals with these things, and I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but my understanding is that Asperger's as a separate diagnosis has ceased to exist. Anyone with the diagnosis would, I guess, be relabeled with high-functioning autism?

That is a huge mistake in my eyes.

[General Battuta]

I should also mention that I'm particularly wary of America's scientists/doctors/psychologists talking about autism. Autism Speaks, a particularly notorious group responsible for spreading large quantities of misinformation is basically the public face for autism over there, and thus there is a worrying possibility that they may ruin things over there.

I don't know about your scientific community stuff, though. Could you send me your sources (if you have them), Battuta? I'm interested. 

Autism Speaks is just an advocacy group, I'd hope they don't have any influence on the actual scientific community. I don't know much about them, though, and you could well be right.

Anyway here's some random-ass article I googled up http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/dsm-v-5-criteria-aspergers-autism-spectrum-1203128

The important thing is that this is a vote by the American Psychological Association which will go into the next DSM, the manual which defines all mental illnesses for everyone in the field. It's a controversial and political document, but it does reflect, in general, what most scientists believe the current evidence points to.

Ironically even though I'm in psych I don't deal at all with this stuff, since my focus is on experimental social behavior. Clinical psych is an alien world to me.

[headdie]

As a UK resident I had to look up Autism Speaks, but given stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_Speaks#Controversies
I would be wary of any scientific work they fund and would prefer to see corroboration before taking it on board, more so than usual.

[General Battuta]

Do they actually fund any meaningful scientific work that would make it into peer reviewed journals?

[BritishShivans]

As a UK resident I had to look up Autism Speaks, but given stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_Speaks#Controversies
I would be wary of any scientific work they fund and would prefer to see corroboration before taking it on board, more so than usual.

Yeah, that's sadly the standard you usually have to hold up. Usually, most advocacy groups and psychologists in the area of autism or similar don't tend to be as reliable. You have to pay attention to the credentials of people working in the area.

But yeah. I find it worrying because I know that the new stuff will probably cause more stress. While the stuff done by the "real" medical scientists/doctors, the problem is that misinformation groups like Autism Speaks usually has significant sway, so even if the people doing the treatment and therapy are qualified, because of the sway and sheer presence of the aforementioned groups, their message will most likely reach people before the science does and cause problems.

[BritishShivans]

Do they actually fund any meaningful scientific work that would make it into peer reviewed journals?

Probably not. I already know the anti-vaxxers tend to comprise a large portion of the Autism Speaks community, so most, if not virtually all that will come it will be pseudoscience.

[Aardwolf]

So liek, the problem I have with "autism as a thing" is that it's just a categorization of the type and severity of a person's peculiar mental development. Really all it means is "this person's brain developed differently, and we have no idea how it's different from normal people or what caused it, but as a result they have bad social skills".

Yes, it's a legitimate thing you can claim as a disability, because it's a fundamental difference in how their brain developed, rather than a face-deep "personality problem", and as such it's useful to be able to categorize it.

But... uh... where was I going with this? Oh right... doofuses publishing articles that say "We may have found out what causes autism!" annoy me.

[General Battuta]

How do you know that ASDs don't have a shared underlying cause?

[MP-Ryan]

How do you know that ASDs don't have a shared underlying cause?

Funny that you mention that.  There's a pretty good chunk of evidence that suggests a strong genetic basis for all ASDs.

[Aardwolf]

Idunno, intuition?

[headdie]

Genetics has for a long time held the best hope for the idea of a universal "cause" though I am using cause in the absence of a better word arriving in my mind as I suspect it wont be as simple as saying genes x, y and z are the cause and that there is some other factor(s) involved whith genetics providing an increase in risk, for example my sister and myself, while my sister is Aspergers I am to my knowledge neurotypical and the same parentage.

[deathfun]

I was going to say a joke, but then I realized it was probably going to be taken the wrong way so I didn't say it
Obviously since there's no joke here


The answer to the genetic problem: No more procreation of the normal kind. We shall create our next generation in test tubes! By utilizing science, we shall create the ultimate human being! A race to make us obsolete and eventually slaves to the very things we created!

Okay, there's *a* joke
Just a different one

[General Battuta]

Genetics has for a long time held the best hope for the idea of a universal "cause" though I am using cause in the absence of a better word arriving in my mind as I suspect it wont be as simple as saying genes x, y and z are the cause and that there is some other factor(s) involved whith genetics providing an increase in risk, for example my sister and myself, while my sister is Aspergers I am to my knowledge neurotypical and the same parentage.

You're right, it probably won't be that simple, and epigenetic factors will likely come into play. But twin studies do provide a gross measurement of how much of the variation in the presence of a disease can be attributed to shared genetic and prenatal factors.

[soilder198]

Autism Speaks is good for some things ->http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C_O0vRTkaaY

They spread the word of how to understand someone with Autism really well, however, they're criticized for viewing Autism as a disease, and not, what some say, just a difference in development.

Good example right here of their controversy http://vimeo.com/20692567

[karajorma]

Not true.  Canada has safe storage/possession/use laws that state exactly the sorts of things I've talked about, and while police have the right of inspection (FYI, NGTM-1R, regulatory inspections are not subject to the same scrutiny as criminal proceedings and therefore can bypass warrant requirements, even in the US - this is why your baggage can be searched at the border), it is rarely exercised except on a complaints basis.

But there's still the possibility of it being exercised. See the difference?

If people think that the only time they'll pay the price for not locking up their gun, is after their gun is used to shoot someone, why would they care? Especially given that as NGTM-1R states, proving that the gun was improperly stored is going to be pretty hard to prove (You can always claim that they must have gotten hold of the key/combination from somewhere).

If there is the possibility of being caught (even if it's small) then it becomes worth storing guns properly. On the one hand you have the annoyance of using the safe/lock but on the other hand, you have the admittedly small chance of someone coming to your house and giving you a massive fine. So since you have to buy the safe/trigger lock as a condition of buying the gun, you might as well use it.

Semi-regular inspections might not always be needed, hell they might not be needed at all. But you definitely need to give some kind of authority figure the ability to enter your house and check or the rules become meaningless and ridiculously easy to circumvent. Having rules in place for what to do only after a tragedy is silly because many people think that tragedies will never happen to them in the first place. Those people who have considered that possibility already use a gun safe/trigger locks.

Yet, despite the seeming non-enforcement, the tiny number of accidental deaths attributed to improper storage of firearms in Canada belies the notion that strict and regular enforcement is a requirement to ensure people follow these laws.

Yes, US culture is different but if you pay attention to what's happening in politics and public opinion now, I think this Newtown mess has created more of an impetus to do something than any mass-murder before it.  Something about 20 dead 5-7 year-olds has triggered the common sense region of the American "gun nut" brain.

Maybe I'm just more cynical than you but I doubt that this is going to cause a long term shift without some form of legislation. Sandy Hook will quickly be forgotten, hell it was almost completely forgotten on a thread about it! People very quickly move on.

I simply don't believe that the gun nuts have shifted enough for change to happen. And I simply don't believe that Americans who don't currently use them, will meekly start to use trigger locks or gun safes without the threat of being beaten with a very big stick.

You only need to look at NGTM-1R's completely wrong assumption that you couldn't make inspections part of any legislation on constitutional grounds to imagine the kind of stupidity we'd see from the pro-gun lobby on the same issue. Cause if NGTM-1R can fall for it, you can bet that the gun nuts will.

"They want to force me have a gun safe. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! 2ND ****ING AMENDMENT!"

"They want to come into my house to check I have a gun safe! UNREASONABLE SEARCH!"

I somehow doubt there's been a big enough shift in opinion to make people willing to change their views on guns. The gun nuts know that they're okay, it's those irresponsible people and criminals who own guns that kill other people, never them!. Why should they have to pay the price? Why should they have to pay a tax on guns in the form of gun safes and trigger locks? The criminals don't have trigger locks! The criminals don't have gun safes! All this does is tax the law-abiding citizen more! It's that Obama again! I own a gun safe but I'm deliberately not going to put my guns in it, the government can't tell me what to do!

Feel free to write me off as a cynic though. We'll see how much tax is collected next year and whether it is paid in safes or dead bodies.

[NGTM-1R]

To be honest, I'm quite aware of what he's citing; however unlike him I actually live here and know that it's not operative in the manner Ryan thinks it is. A court challenge has even money on beating it and the government isn't going to pursue you into your house to check under any normal circumstance. "Can", "Will" and "Will Have Your Can Taken Away For Trying" are different things.

[karajorma]

As I keep saying, the will to do something isn't there. All you're doing is backing that up.

If all of America say "Of course allowing an inspection isn't a violation of the constitution any more than a baggage check" then the supreme court would have no choice in the matter.

But they won't do that. People like you will argue that it's not going to happen, and people more stupid will argue about how it's Obama Nazism again.

[NGTM-1R]

As I keep saying, the will to do something isn't there.

You're essentially saying that because you only get about 50% percent compliance to the speed limit on Scripps-Poway Parkway, and it's impossible to do any kind of practical monitoring or because practical monitoring has never been and will never be attempted (all three are true), that having the speed limit there is clearly useless.

That's clearly facetious. So is this argument you're making that changing the law to require trigger locks will have no effect regardless of enforcement. Some percentage of people who currently don't have them will make an attempt to obey the law regardless, thereby making their guns safer; probably a fairly significant percentage, at that.

Trying to connect "willingness to enforce" with "willingness to change" the law is something that anyone who's examined cellphone driving laws would pretty quickly figure out doesn't actually make a connection a lot of the time. But prohibiting talking on a phone and driving at the same time did significantly reduce the number of people who did it.