Re: Association between Microdeletion and Microduplication at 16p11.2 and Autism

[Guest guest]

Tim Channon wrote:

> Any comment Bill?

>

> http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa075974

It's captivated " the media " fer'shur; but I'm *far less* agog over it.

1. They've moderately-well described a low-rate statistical association

of an objective finding (Ch. 16 abnormality) with a *NON-objective*

finding (autism). That's an iffy thing to do, at best.

2. The incidence rates they cite are in the few-percent range. That's

not wildly dissimilar to rates of other suspected/implicated chromosome

and/or biochemical abnormalities with equally suspect " associations " to

autism.

3. *Definitely* they don't have a " smoking gun " ! Not even close.

[4. But y'know: publications, regardless of merit, help pay the bills.]

- Bill, 75, AS; retired Clinical Cytogeneticist (ABMG).

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

I had to comment on this

Statistically, 1% does not mean a thing.

It really comes down to how that is interpreted and what meaning

this has based on randomness.

Have you heard of the phrase, carefully

calculated random?

Not enough of a causal link from a layman's

pespective, but from a genetic research perspective the statistical paradyme

may be very significant.

Can anyone but a geneticist explain

this?

Greg

dx AS at 53

Tim Channon

Sent by: aspires-relationships

11/01/2008 01:39 AM

Please respond to

aspires-relationships

To

aspires-relationships

cc

Subject

Association

between Microdeletion and Microduplication at 16p11.2 and Autism

Any comment Bill?

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa075974

[Guest guest]

1% is not statistically relevant.

>

> I had to comment on this

>

> Statistically, 1% does not mean a thing. It really comes down to

how that

> is interpreted and what meaning this has based on randomness.

>

> Have you heard of the phrase, carefully calculated random?

>

> Not enough of a causal link from a layman's pespective, but from a

genetic

> research perspective the statistical paradyme may be very

significant.

>

> Can anyone but a geneticist explain this?

>

> Greg

> dx AS at 53

>

>

>

>

> Tim Channon

> Sent by: aspires-relationships

> 11/01/2008 01:39 AM

> Please respond to

> aspires-relationships

>

>

> To

> aspires-relationships

> cc

>

> Subject

> Association between Microdeletion and

> Microduplication at 16p11.2 and Autism

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Any comment Bill?

>

> http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa075974

>

[Guest guest]

Greg, In analytic number theory terms, "carefully calculated randomness" means that the main term is wiped out by the error term. Of course, the researchers in question may have just discovered another chromosomal abnormality that is frequently mistaken for autism, when a child has it. In terms of actual autism, it would not mean very much in that case. there are other cases of one disorder's being mistaken for another, or one syndrome's being mistakenly identified as something else. Greg Greer wrote: I had to comment on this Statistically, 1% does not mean a thing. It really comes down to how that is interpreted and what meaning this has based on randomness. Have you heard of the phrase, carefully calculated random? Not enough of a causal link from a layman's pespective, but from a genetic research perspective the statistical paradyme may be very significant. Can anyone but a geneticist explain this? Greg dx AS at 53 .

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Guest guest]

Princess wrote:

> Greg,

>

> In analytic number theory terms, " carefully calculated randomness " means

that the main term is wiped out by the error term.

>

> Of course, the researchers in question may have just discovered another

chromosomal abnormality that is frequently mistaken for autism, when a child has

it. In terms of actual autism, it would not mean very much in that case. there

are other cases of one disorder's being mistaken for another, or one syndrome's

being mistakenly identified as something else.

That is a very pertinent point: -

There is no test for Autism, which is a matter of human judgement and

guesswork, therefore the comparison is with a dodgy grouping where 100%

accurate classification is unlikely.

In my experience so far there are other people akin to myself but there

are others who are markedly different to the extent of my wondering

whether we inhabit the same group.

There seem to be particular facets of Autism which do not get written

accurately about and here I am thinking about strangeness in mental

processes. I can't describe them well, which is a circular problem

caused by itself.

I've described some of it as like attempting to move a finger or waggle

an ear when you can't, that feeling of ought to be able to but the

nervous control is not quite there.

A week ago I mentioned the Durig paper to someone, who then

said they would like to read it. I looked and realised the only web copy

is in a terrible state so I yanked it into a good editor and started

bashing.

On re-reading in detail, plus the better comprehension which comes from

good layout it is proving illuminating. I haven't finished yet.

One of his key points with which I still agree very much is the broken

Inductive Logic in Autism. My extension of that to what NT do and we

cannot seems to explain a lot. NT when faced with insufficient

information to an automatic logic jump to a prejudiced position, AS hit

the buffers. A lot flows from that.

If I remember correctly this also led to examples of researchers on

Autism doing such jumps about the behaviour they were observing in

Autistics: it must be because, when there was no evidence and they did

not ask the subjects. Actually there could be a simple but different

explanation for what they observed.

Similarly the concept of self observation in NT explains most of their

behaviour.

Durig disappeared from research etc. and some digging found a last

reference to him working in small business and IT support in Florida,

with a Myspace account last accessed late summer 2007.

Quoting part of the paper: -

" The Logical Inference Theory of Autism

If the above assumptions are correct then the brain must provide the

setting wherein a neurological architecture is erected and developed

which supports the activities of the deductive, inductive, and abductive

processes underlying the socially constructed phenomena of meaning,

mind, language, self, and emotions. The application of logical inference

theory to Autism suggests that Autism is the result of an impairment in

the brain’s regulation of the inferencing processes such that the

likelihood of each mode of inference being invoked and sustained, and

the level of sensory information processing available at each mode of

inference is imbalanced. This imbalance favors the levels of deductive

and abductive competence, while reducing inductive competence to the

point of being null.

The faculties of induction may be undeveloped completely in people with

Autism. But given the fact that at least some people with Autism develop

inductive faculties to some degree it seems plausible that a control

system which regulates inferencing processes may in fact be covering or

masking a normative faculty for invoking the three modes of inference,

thus forcing the individual to favor the deductive and abductive

processes and rendering the individual unable to access the inductive

processes. In other words, there may be an person with Autism with

intact normative brain faculties which support all three modes of

inference, but such a control system might only be allowing the

individual to invoke and sustain deductive and abductive processes

exclusive of the inductive processes. "

[Guest guest]

Tim..thank you for the link to the NEJM. I just downloaded the

article and will be looking at it this weekend.

> > Greg,

> >

> > In analytic number theory terms, " carefully calculated

randomness " means that the main term is wiped out by the error term.

> >

> > Of course, the researchers in question may have just

discovered another chromosomal abnormality that is frequently

mistaken for autism, when a child has it. In terms of actual autism,

it would not mean very much in that case. there are other cases of

one disorder's being mistaken for another, or one syndrome's being

mistakenly identified as something else.

>

> That is a very pertinent point: -

>

> There is no test for Autism, which is a matter of human judgement

and

> guesswork, therefore the comparison is with a dodgy grouping where

100%

> accurate classification is unlikely.

>

> In my experience so far there are other people akin to myself but

there

> are others who are markedly different to the extent of my wondering

> whether we inhabit the same group.

>

> There seem to be particular facets of Autism which do not get

written

> accurately about and here I am thinking about strangeness in mental

> processes. I can't describe them well, which is a circular problem

> caused by itself.

>

> I've described some of it as like attempting to move a finger or

waggle

> an ear when you can't, that feeling of ought to be able to but the

> nervous control is not quite there.

>

> A week ago I mentioned the Durig paper to someone, who

then

> said they would like to read it. I looked and realised the only web

copy

> is in a terrible state so I yanked it into a good editor and

started

> bashing.

> On re-reading in detail, plus the better comprehension which comes

from

> good layout it is proving illuminating. I haven't finished yet.

>

> One of his key points with which I still agree very much is the

broken

> Inductive Logic in Autism. My extension of that to what NT do and

we

> cannot seems to explain a lot. NT when faced with insufficient

> information to an automatic logic jump to a prejudiced position, AS

hit

> the buffers. A lot flows from that.

>

> If I remember correctly this also led to examples of researchers on

> Autism doing such jumps about the behaviour they were observing in

> Autistics: it must be because, when there was no evidence and they

did

> not ask the subjects. Actually there could be a simple but

different

> explanation for what they observed.

>

> Similarly the concept of self observation in NT explains most of

their

> behaviour.

>

> Durig disappeared from research etc. and some digging found a last

> reference to him working in small business and IT support in

Florida,

> with a Myspace account last accessed late summer 2007.

>

> Quoting part of the paper: -

>

> " The Logical Inference Theory of Autism

>

> If the above assumptions are correct then the brain must provide

the

> setting wherein a neurological architecture is erected and

developed

> which supports the activities of the deductive, inductive, and

abductive

> processes underlying the socially constructed phenomena of meaning,

> mind, language, self, and emotions. The application of logical

inference

> theory to Autism suggests that Autism is the result of an

impairment in

> the brain’s regulation of the inferencing processes such that the

> likelihood of each mode of inference being invoked and sustained,

and

> the level of sensory information processing available at each mode

of

> inference is imbalanced. This imbalance favors the levels of

deductive

> and abductive competence, while reducing inductive competence to

the

> point of being null.

>

> The faculties of induction may be undeveloped completely in people

with

> Autism. But given the fact that at least some people with Autism

develop

> inductive faculties to some degree it seems plausible that a

control

> system which regulates inferencing processes may in fact be

covering or

> masking a normative faculty for invoking the three modes of

inference,

> thus forcing the individual to favor the deductive and abductive

> processes and rendering the individual unable to access the

inductive

> processes. In other words, there may be an person with Autism with

> intact normative brain faculties which support all three modes of

> inference, but such a control system might only be allowing the

> individual to invoke and sustain deductive and abductive processes

> exclusive of the inductive processes. "

>

[Guest guest]

Tim, I am not sure what abductive is. i know what inductive and deductive processes are, and do them quite well. What i do not always get is central coherence. I am wondering if he could be talking about an aspect of this- not too sure, since I lack knowledge of the term abductive, and I cannot default to a prejudice- remember, I am not NT- LOL! In mathematics, when I believe I see a pattern, I test it a bit, to see if it holds up- but still reserve the term "Conjecture" for my idea, and do not take it as fact. However, I certainly make deductins from it. On the other hand, summarizing is quite hard. I can get really computational, detail-oriented, really quickly, and have leearned over time to discipline myself not to do that, but to seek a proof and main ideas. Computation feels a bit like stimming- I often do a lot of it just to relax. Anyone else do

this? Tim Channon wrote: Princess wrote:> Greg,> > In analytic number theory terms, "carefully calculated randomness" means that the main term is wiped out by the error term.> > Of course, the researchers in question may have just discovered another chromosomal abnormality that is frequently mistaken for autism, when a child has it. In terms of actual autism, it would not mean very much in that case. there are other

cases of one disorder's being mistaken for another, or one syndrome's being mistakenly identified as something else. That is a very pertinent point: -There is no test for Autism, which is a matter of human judgement and guesswork, therefore the comparison is with a dodgy grouping where 100% accurate classification is unlikely.In my experience so far there are other people akin to myself but there are others who are markedly different to the extent of my wondering whether we inhabit the same group.There seem to be particular facets of Autism which do not get written accurately about and here I am thinking about strangeness in mental processes. I can't describe them well, which is a circular problemcaused by itself.I've described some of it as like attempting to move a finger or waggle an ear when you can't, that feeling of ought to be able to but the nervous control is not quite there.A week

ago I mentioned the Durig paper to someone, who then said they would like to read it. I looked and realised the only web copy is in a terrible state so I yanked it into a good editor and started bashing.On re-reading in detail, plus the better comprehension which comes from good layout it is proving illuminating. I haven't finished yet.One of his key points with which I still agree very much is the broken Inductive Logic in Autism. My extension of that to what NT do and we cannot seems to explain a lot. NT when faced with insufficient information to an automatic logic jump to a prejudiced position, AS hit the buffers. A lot flows from that.If I remember correctly this also led to examples of researchers on Autism doing such jumps about the behaviour they were observing in Autistics: it must be because, when there was no evidence and they did not ask the subjects. Actually there could be a simple but

different explanation for what they observed.Similarly the concept of self observation in NT explains most of their behaviour.Durig disappeared from research etc. and some digging found a last reference to him working in small business and IT support in Florida, with a Myspace account last accessed late summer 2007.Quoting part of the paper: -"The Logical Inference Theory of AutismIf the above assumptions are correct then the brain must provide the setting wherein a neurological architecture is erected and developed which supports the activities of the deductive, inductive, and abductive processes underlying the socially constructed phenomena of meaning, mind, language, self, and emotions. The application of logical inference theory to Autism suggests that Autism is the result of an impairment in the brain’s regulation of the inferencing processes such that the likelihood of each mode of

inference being invoked and sustained, and the level of sensory information processing available at each mode of inference is imbalanced. This imbalance favors the levels of deductive and abductive competence, while reducing inductive competence to the point of being null.The faculties of induction may be undeveloped completely in people with Autism. But given the fact that at least some people with Autism develop inductive faculties to some degree it seems plausible that a control system which regulates inferencing processes may in fact be covering or masking a normative faculty for invoking the three modes of inference, thus forcing the individual to favor the deductive and abductive processes and rendering the individual unable to access the inductive processes. In other words, there may be an person with Autism with intact normative brain faculties which support all three modes of inference, but such a control

system might only be allowing the individual to invoke and sustain deductive and abductive processes exclusive of the inductive processes."

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Guest guest]

Tim Channon wrote:

> Princess wrote:

>>Greg,

>> In analytic number theory terms, " carefully calculated randomness " means

that the main term is wiped out by the error term.

>> Of course, the researchers in question may have just discovered another

chromosomal abnormality that is frequently mistaken for autism, when a child has

it. In terms of actual autism, it would not mean very much in that case. there

are other cases of one disorder's being mistaken for another, or one syndrome's

being mistakenly identified as something else.

>

>

> That is a very pertinent point: -

>

> There is no test for Autism, which is a matter of human judgement and

> guesswork, therefore the comparison is with a dodgy grouping where 100%

> accurate classification is unlikely.

>

> In my experience so far there are other people akin to myself but there

> are others who are markedly different to the extent of my wondering

> whether we inhabit the same group.

>

> There seem to be particular facets of Autism which do not get written

> accurately about and here I am thinking about strangeness in mental

> processes. I can't describe them well, which is a circular problem

> caused by itself.

>

> I've described some of it as like attempting to move a finger or waggle

> an ear when you can't, that feeling of ought to be able to but the

> nervous control is not quite there.

>

> A week ago I mentioned the Durig paper to someone, who then

Please, Tim -- What paper was that?

[ snip ]

> Quoting part of the paper: -

>

> " The Logical Inference Theory of Autism

[ snip ]

>

> The faculties of induction may be undeveloped completely in people with

> Autism. But given the fact that at least some people with Autism develop

> inductive faculties to some degree it seems plausible that a control

> system which regulates inferencing processes may in fact be covering or

> masking a normative faculty for invoking the three modes of inference,

> thus forcing the individual to favor the deductive and abductive

> processes and rendering the individual unable to access the inductive

> processes. In other words, there may be an person with Autism with

> intact normative brain faculties which support all three modes of

> inference, but such a control system might only be allowing the

> individual to invoke and sustain deductive and abductive processes

> exclusive of the inductive processes. "

FWIW...

I'd imagine the statement " given the fact that at least some people

with Autism develop inductive faculties to some degree... " implies

gradation of capability within a spectrum.

At any rate more than it implies " ...a control system which regulates

inferencing processes ... covering or masking a normative faculty for

invoking the three modes of inference "

Simpler. ...Occam's Razor don'cha know.

- Bill (Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem)

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

I do, .

> > Greg,

> >

> > In analytic number theory terms, " carefully calculated

randomness " means that the main term is wiped out by the error term.

> >

> > Of course, the researchers in question may have just discovered

another chromosomal abnormality that is frequently mistaken for

autism, when a child has it. In terms of actual autism, it would not

mean very much in that case. there are other cases of one disorder's

being mistaken for another, or one syndrome's being mistakenly

identified as something else.

>

> That is a very pertinent point: -

>

> There is no test for Autism, which is a matter of human judgement

and

> guesswork, therefore the comparison is with a dodgy grouping where

100%

> accurate classification is unlikely.

>

> In my experience so far there are other people akin to myself but

there

> are others who are markedly different to the extent of my wondering

> whether we inhabit the same group.

>

> There seem to be particular facets of Autism which do not get

written

> accurately about and here I am thinking about strangeness in mental

> processes. I can't describe them well, which is a circular problem

> caused by itself.

>

> I've described some of it as like attempting to move a finger or

waggle

> an ear when you can't, that feeling of ought to be able to but the

> nervous control is not quite there.

>

> A week ago I mentioned the Durig paper to someone, who

then

> said they would like to read it. I looked and realised the only web

copy

> is in a terrible state so I yanked it into a good editor and

started

> bashing.

> On re-reading in detail, plus the better comprehension which comes

from

> good layout it is proving illuminating. I haven't finished yet.

>

> One of his key points with which I still agree very much is the

broken

> Inductive Logic in Autism. My extension of that to what NT do and

we

> cannot seems to explain a lot. NT when faced with insufficient

> information to an automatic logic jump to a prejudiced position, AS

hit

> the buffers. A lot flows from that.

>

> If I remember correctly this also led to examples of researchers on

> Autism doing such jumps about the behaviour they were observing in

> Autistics: it must be because, when there was no evidence and they

did

> not ask the subjects. Actually there could be a simple but

different

> explanation for what they observed.

>

> Similarly the concept of self observation in NT explains most of

their

> behaviour.

>

> Durig disappeared from research etc. and some digging found a last

> reference to him working in small business and IT support in

Florida,

> with a Myspace account last accessed late summer 2007.

>

> Quoting part of the paper: -

>

> " The Logical Inference Theory of Autism

>

> If the above assumptions are correct then the brain must provide

the

> setting wherein a neurological architecture is erected and

developed

> which supports the activities of the deductive, inductive, and

abductive

> processes underlying the socially constructed phenomena of meaning,

> mind, language, self, and emotions. The application of logical

inference

> theory to Autism suggests that Autism is the result of an

impairment in

> the brain’s regulation of the inferencing processes such that the

> likelihood of each mode of inference being invoked and sustained,

and

> the level of sensory information processing available at each mode

of

> inference is imbalanced. This imbalance favors the levels of

deductive

> and abductive competence, while reducing inductive competence to

the

> point of being null.

>

> The faculties of induction may be undeveloped completely in people

with

> Autism. But given the fact that at least some people with Autism

develop

> inductive faculties to some degree it seems plausible that a

control

> system which regulates inferencing processes may in fact be

covering or

> masking a normative faculty for invoking the three modes of

inference,

> thus forcing the individual to favor the deductive and abductive

> processes and rendering the individual unable to access the

inductive

> processes. In other words, there may be an person with Autism with

> intact normative brain faculties which support all three modes of

> inference, but such a control system might only be allowing the

> individual to invoke and sustain deductive and abductive processes

> exclusive of the inductive processes. "

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!

Search.

>

[Guest guest]

WD Loughman wrote:

>> A week ago I mentioned the Durig paper to someone, who then

>

>

> Please, Tim -- What paper was that?

Err... seems to be cellulose based dead matter, coloured white.

Microsociology of Autism.

There is another paper which I seem to have mislaid which is of more

importance to me. :-)

Pop the following with quotes into Google.

" The faculties of induction may be undeveloped completely in people with

Autism. "

If the web copy is too hard to read email me. (warning to Windows users,

is CR delimited)

>

> [ snip ]

>> Quoting part of the paper: -

>>

>

> FWIW...

> I'd imagine the statement " given the fact that at least some people

> with Autism develop inductive faculties to some degree... " implies

> gradation of capability within a spectrum.

No.

He suggests it is merely hidden by good use of what is available.

You know what the ship ploughing through the sea means even if you

furrow your brow. ;-)

He is though talking about hard Autistics, at the apparently low

functioning end.

> At any rate more than it implies " ...a control system which regulates

> inferencing processes ... covering or masking a normative faculty for

> invoking the three modes of inference "

>

> Simpler. ...Occam's Razor don'cha know.

>

> - Bill (Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem)

[Guest guest]

Tim Channon wrote:

> WD Loughman wrote:

>>>A week ago I mentioned the Durig paper to someone, who then

>>

>>Please, Tim -- What paper was that?

>

> Err... seems to be cellulose based dead matter, coloured white.

Prefer cream colored myself; or at least off-white.

Wouldn't use cellulose based, but, y'know, vellum and parchment (the

real stuff) is a bit pricey. I'm told the British Parliament uses

it; but they've got more money than I do.

>

> Microsociology of Autism.

Got it; thanks! Very interesting... (Says he, pulling on his beard.)

>

> There is another paper which I seem to have mislaid which is of more

> importance to me. :-)

Similar/same subject area? When/if you find it, would you email it or a

URL to me?

>

> Pop the following with quotes into Google.

>

> " The faculties of induction may be undeveloped completely in people with

> Autism. "

That gets me Durig's paper again. And another link which leads to, uh,

*fascinating* places -- sometimes.

>

> If the web copy is too hard to read email me. (warning to Windows users,

> is CR delimited)

>

>> [ snip ]

>>>Quoting part of the paper: -

>>>

>>FWIW...

>> I'd imagine the statement " given the fact that at least some people

>>with Autism develop inductive faculties to some degree... " implies

>>gradation of capability within a spectrum.

>

> No.

> He suggests it is merely hidden by good use of what is available.

Yes. His " covering or masking " .

But it leaves the postulate of a separate mechanism intact. That's

what I'm uncomfortable over: yet another mechanism (YAM) <grin>.

> You know what the ship ploughing through the sea means even if you

> furrow your brow. ;-)

>

> He is though talking about hard Autistics, at the apparently low

> functioning end.

Yes, I supposed that. But if indeed autism is a spectrum spreading

" upward " , his *exact* notion (a hard-edged one I think) isn't the only

possible mechanism. And it gets harder to envision, the " higher " the

slope. I think my notion is as good, and likely more simple.

Still, I do like his paper. Gotta noodle on it more. It's a lot

closer to my own thinking than most everyone else's stuff.

>> At any rate more than it implies " ...a control system which regulates

>>inferencing processes ... covering or masking a normative faculty for

>>invoking the three modes of inference "

>>

>>Simpler. ...Occam's Razor don'cha know.

>>

>>- Bill (Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem)

>

- Bill

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

WD Loughman wrote:

>

> Yes, I supposed that. But if indeed autism is a spectrum spreading

> " upward " , his *exact* notion (a hard-edged one I think) isn't the only

> possible mechanism. And it gets harder to envision, the " higher " the

> slope. I think my notion is as good, and likely more simple.

> Still, I do like his paper. Gotta noodle on it more. It's a lot

> closer to my own thinking than most everyone else's stuff.

I find it very difficult getting a clear meaning on the kinds of " thing "

where thing seems to be various words meaning roughly the same, logic,

reasoning, thinking, and so on, all context / field dependent.

Induction.

Deduction.

Abduction.

Seduction.

Very obviously related, same number of letters.

We don't often use all the forms of those words, maybe making

understanding harder. Induct. Deduct. Abduct.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/induct

leads to

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/induce

" conclude, reason, reason out - decide by reasoning; draw or come to a

conclusion; " We reasoned that it was cheaper to rent than to buy a house " "

and

" give rise, bring about, produce - cause to happen, occur or exist;

" This procedure produces a curious effect " ; " The new law gave rise to

many complaints " ; " These chemicals produce a noxious vapor " ; " the new

President must bring about a change in the health care system " "

======

Deduction

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deduction

" The drawing of a conclusion by reasoning; the act of deducing.

4. Logic

a. The process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily

from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the

specific.

b. A conclusion reached by this process. "

and

" 1. The process of reasoning from the general to the specific, in which

a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

2. A conclusion reached by this process.

Usage

The logical processes known as deduction and induction work in opposite

ways.

In deduction general principles are applied to specific instances.

Thus, using a mathematical formula to figure the volume of air that can

be contained in a gymnasium is applying deduction.

Similarly, applying a law of physics to predict the outcome of an

experiment is reasoning by deduction.

By contrast, induction makes generalizations based on a number of

specific instances.

The observation of hundreds of examples in which a certain chemical

kills plants might prompt the inductive conclusion that the chemical is

toxic to all plants. Inductive generalizations are often revised as more

examples are studied and more facts are known.

If certain plants that have not been tested turn out to be unaffected by

the chemical, the conclusion about the chemical's toxicity must be

revised or restricted.

In this way, an inductive generalization is much like a hypothesis. "

====

Abduct

Abductive

" abductive reasoning

Determining plausibility based on a set of evidence. "

Association work which I think is very useful is inference.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Abductive

" abductive

(computing) : characterizing a logical process as being one of abduction

or inference "

http://www.onelook.com/?w=inference & ls=b

" Quick definitions (inference)

noun: the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a

logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior

conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation "

===

In my opinion AS can do all the above, some very effectively. We are Spock.

Yet something is different otherwise we would not be talking about it.

That last quote " basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions "

fits exactly with the extension I have made of the paper I can't find

right now! :-)

When we are faced with ambiguity we freeze, even if we guess much the

same as an NT. I think I have seen this a zillion times.

Take a side example, an NT reads between the lines of some text and

takes insult, becomes an emotional sleight, is assumed to be a real sleight.

Does any of that make sense?

I'm struggling.

[Guest guest]

From Wikipedia the following definitionsmay help. Deduction allows deriving b as a consequence of a.In other words, deduction is the process of deriving the consequences ofwhat is assumed. Given the truth of the assumptions, a valid deduction guarantees the truth of the conclusion.Induction allows inferring some a from multiple instantiationsof b when a entails b. Induction is the process ofinferring probable antecedents as a result of observing multiple consequents.Abduction allows inferring a as an explanation of b.Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a of “aentails b†to be inferred from the consequence b. Deductionand abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like “aentailsb†is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalentto the logical fallacy affirmingthe consequent or Posthoc ergo propter hoc, because there aremultiple possible explanations for b. Unlike deduction and induction, abduction can produce resultsthat are incorrect within its formal system. However, it can still be usefulas a heuristic,especially when something is known about the likelihood of different causesfor b. GregDX AS at 53 Tim Channon Sent by: aspires-relationships 14/01/2008 04:39 AMPlease respond toaspires-relationships Toaspires-relationships ccSubjectRe: Associationbetween Microdeletion and Microduplication at 16p11.2 and AutismWD Loughman wrote:> > Yes, I supposed that. But if indeed autism is a spectrum spreading> " upward " , his *exact* notion (a hard-edged one I think)isn't the only > possible mechanism. And it gets harder to envision, the " higher " the > slope. I think my notion is as good, and likely more simple.> Still, I do like his paper. Gotta noodle on it more. It's a lot > closer to my own thinking than most everyone else's stuff.I find it very difficult getting a clear meaning on the kinds of " thing " where thing seems to be various words meaning roughly the same, logic,reasoning, thinking, and so on, all context / field dependent.Induction.Deduction.Abduction.Seduction.Very obviously related, same number of letters.We don't often use all the forms of those words, maybe making understanding harder. Induct. Deduct. Abduct.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inductleads tohttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/induce " conclude, reason, reason out - decide by reasoning; draw or cometo a conclusion; " We reasoned that it was cheaper to rent than to buy ahouse " " and " give rise, bring about, produce - cause to happen, occur or exist; " This procedure produces a curious effect " ; " The new lawgave rise to many complaints " ; " These chemicals produce a noxious vapor " ; " the new President must bring about a change in the health care system " " ======Deductionhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/deduction " The drawing of a conclusion by reasoning; the act of deducing.4. Logica. The process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to thespecific.b. A conclusion reached by this process. " and " 1. The process of reasoning from the general to the specific, inwhich a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.2. A conclusion reached by this process.UsageThe logical processes known as deduction and induction work in oppositeways.In deduction general principles are applied to specific instances.Thus, using a mathematical formula to figure the volume of air that canbe contained in a gymnasium is applying deduction.Similarly, applying a law of physics to predict the outcome of an experiment is reasoning by deduction.By contrast, induction makes generalizations based on a number of specific instances.The observation of hundreds of examples in which a certain chemical kills plants might prompt the inductive conclusion that the chemical istoxic to all plants. Inductive generalizations are often revised as moreexamples are studied and more facts are known.If certain plants that have not been tested turn out to be unaffected bythe chemical, the conclusion about the chemical's toxicity must be revised or restricted.In this way, an inductive generalization is much like a hypothesis. " ====AbductAbductive " abductive reasoningDetermining plausibility based on a set of evidence. " Association work which I think is very useful is inference.http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Abductive " abductive(computing) : characterizing a logical process as being one of abductionor inference " http://www.onelook.com/?w=inference & ls=b " Quick definitions (inference)noun: the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation " ===In my opinion AS can do all the above, some very effectively. We are Spock.Yet something is different otherwise we would not be talking about it.That last quote " basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions " fits exactly with the extension I have made of the paper I can't find right now! :-)When we are faced with ambiguity we freeze, even if we guess much the same as an NT. I think I have seen this a zillion times.Take a side example, an NT reads between the lines of some text and takes insult, becomes an emotional sleight, is assumed to be a real sleight.Does any of that make sense?I'm struggling.

[Guest guest]

Tim Channon wrote:

> WD Loughman wrote:

>>Yes, I supposed that. But if indeed autism is a spectrum spreading

>> " upward " , his *exact* notion (a hard-edged one I think) isn't the only

>>possible mechanism. And it gets harder to envision, the " higher " the

>>slope. I think my notion is as good, and likely more simple.

>> Still, I do like his paper. Gotta noodle on it more. It's a lot

>>closer to my own thinking than most everyone else's stuff.

>

> I find it very difficult getting a clear meaning on the kinds of " thing "

> where thing seems to be various words meaning roughly the same, logic,

> reasoning, thinking, and so on, all context / field dependent.

>

> Induction.

> Deduction.

> Abduction.

> Seduction.

>

> Very obviously related, same number of letters.

>

> We don't often use all the forms of those words, maybe making

> understanding harder. Induct. Deduct. Abduct.

[ snip three definitions; keep Abduction ]

> ====

> Abduct

> Abductive

> " abductive reasoning

> Determining plausibility based on a set of evidence. "

FWIW: the term was coined by logician Peirce. It was

used importantly by Bateson (linguist. epistemologist) who lived

in " my " SF Bay Area(!), and whose father was the prominent geneticist

Bateson (my other Tribe).

Useful Google terms:

" wikipedia " Bateson " inference abduction "

One of many useful links you'll find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

>

> Association work which I think is very useful is inference.

>

> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Abductive

> " abductive

> (computing) : characterizing a logical process as being one of abduction

> or inference "

>

> http://www.onelook.com/?w=inference & ls=b

> " Quick definitions (inference)

> noun: the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a

> logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior

> conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation "

>

> ===

> In my opinion AS can do all the above, some very effectively. We are Spock.

>

> Yet something is different otherwise we would not be talking about it.

Yes! Spock, and Commander Data as well as others are all the " different

ones " rolled into one. *We* (AS and related) are *they*.

The paradigm, the *characteristics*, are used repeatedly in sci-fi

series and books to represent all those powerful cognitive properties so

obviously *lacking* in the other roles, in the NTs perhaps.

From Wikipedia:

Abduction, [as] used by Bateson ... [is] a method of comparing

patterns of relationship, and their symmetry or asymmetry ... especially

in complex ... systems.

In a formal logic system, Abduction leads to and is equivalent to " post

hoc ergo propter hoc " (the " Fallacy of the Excluded Middle " ). Obviously

this is dicey, and must be treated with great care to avoid erroneous

consequences.

But its successful use is the cornerstone of many or most scientific

hypotheses.

>

> That last quote " basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions "

>

> fits exactly with the extension I have made of the paper I can't find

> right now! :-)

>

> When we are faced with ambiguity we freeze, even if we guess much the

" Faced with ambiguity " is our perception, our discovery, that what we're

dealing with seems to have something missing: the improperly Excluded

Middle.

So " we freeze " . But " freezing " is temporary to the prepared mind.

The prepared mind has a vast number of facts *and* relationships to

work with. Among visual-spatial thinkers, these facts and relationships

*quickly* are slotted into their " proper " places in our internal worlds,

and a *new* relationship appears.

Sometimes the " slotting-in " process is slow; sometimes painfully

slow, out to years in rare cases.

But slow or (more often) very fast, once incorporated into the whole,

ambiguities are resolved. Good answers appear.

Friends have equated the process to Spock's " grocking " . Abduction

properly done is grocking.

Personal aside: I built a career on that (speedy) capability.

> same as an NT. I think I have seen this a zillion times.

Some NTs are visual-spatial thinkers. I believe many or most AS are.

>

> Take a side example, an NT reads between the lines of some text and

> takes insult, becomes an emotional sleight, is assumed to be a real sleight.

An AS on the other hand does not read between the lines; does not infer

a sleight. The basis for assuming AS are " naive " ?? I call it being

careful and correct.

>

> Does any of that make sense?

> I'm struggling.

Sure. It makes a lot of sense.

- Bill 75, AS; ...used to struggle too.

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm