Article~Should we rewrite the autism rule book?

[Guest guest]

When you've met one person with one form of autism, you have met only and only

one person with one form of autism. It is laziness on the DSM-5's part to

create the mindset of making the general public to think, " When you've met one

person with one form of autism, you've met everyone with all forms of autism. "

I can't explain it any simpler than that.

Big freakin' deal if psychologists want to " cry foul " because they don't want to

deal with all the possible combinations. People are human, not a combination.

Some people just don't seem to understand. The mental health community wants to

put people with Aspergers and all other forums of autism into a box and label us

ASD to make it easier for themselves (and for others, who can ensure that we are

not insurable).

The mental health community and these others know where they can go and stay

there until everything freezes over.

>

> Should we rewrite the autism rule book?

>

>

>

> 15 March 2012

>

>

>

> By Fred Volkmar and Francesca Happ�

>

>

>

> (Two �different� opinions?)

>

>

>

> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328555.500-should-we-rewrite-the-aut

> ism-rule-book.html

>

>

>

> Bill or others: If you are reading this, is Fred talking about STATS &

> Probability when he states:

>

>

>

> �The way DSM-IV is formulated means there are over 2000 combinations of the

> 12 criteria that at the minimum threshold of six yield an autism diagnosis.

> DSM-5 proposes collapsing autism, Asperger's and PDD-NOS into a single

> " autism spectrum " category, combining and reducing criteria, vastly cutting

> the number of combinations that can lead to an autism diagnosis.�

>

>

>

> I wonder what the probability is based on a sample size of 10,000? I only

> ask as I am taking a STATS class and this caught my attention.

>

>

>

> Have a great day!

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

This has to be very concerning for some parents who are worried their children

will fall through the cracks now. Some adults with Aspergers also fear losing

their identity as an Aspie. I feel it's up to the community to keep it alive

then, it does not need an " official " stamp to be a culture. However, I think the

bigger fear for some high functioning adults is that supports won't be available

for others like them, who, without some assistance, would not have been

employable. They may be quite functional but social difficulties make it hard

for them to find work, especially in this economic climate where one in six

people (presumably most without disabilities) is living below the poverty line

now. In this older interview on NPR radio, the proposed changes/additions in

several categories is discussed.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123570221

- Helen

> >

> > Should we rewrite the autism rule book?

> >

> >

> >

> > 15 March 2012

> >

> >

> >

> > By Fred Volkmar and Francesca Happ�

> >

> >

> >

> > (Two �different� opinions?)

> >

> >

> >

> > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328555.500-should-we-rewrite-the-aut

> > ism-rule-book.html

> >

> >

> >

> > Bill or others: If you are reading this, is Fred talking about STATS &

> > Probability when he states:

> >

> >

> >

> > �The way DSM-IV is formulated means there are over 2000 combinations of

the

> > 12 criteria that at the minimum threshold of six yield an autism diagnosis.

> > DSM-5 proposes collapsing autism, Asperger's and PDD-NOS into a single

> > " autism spectrum " category, combining and reducing criteria, vastly cutting

> > the number of combinations that can lead to an autism diagnosis.�

> >

> >

> >

> > I wonder what the probability is based on a sample size of 10,000? I only

> > ask as I am taking a STATS class and this caught my attention.

> >

> >

> >

> > Have a great day!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Newland wrote:

>

> *Should we rewrite the autism rule book? *

> 15 March 2012

> By Fred Volkmar and Francesca Happé

>

> (Two “different” opinions?)

>

>

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328555.500-should-we-rewrite-the-autism-\

rule-book.html

>

> Bill or others: If you are reading this, is Fred talking about STATS &

> Probability when he states:

Ah, - yes I'm reading this - haven't gone away.

Neither Volkmar nor Happé is talking about " STATS " .

Each acknowledges the " official " autism criteria need to be changed.

Each only is giving a different - and *weak* - reason for change. Of

course professionally each has charged off in the wrong direction.

>

> */“The way DSM-IV is formulated means there are over 2000 combinations

> of the 12 criteria that at the minimum threshold of six yield an autism

> diagnosis. DSM-5 proposes collapsing autism, Asperger's and PDD-NOS into

> a single " autism spectrum " category, combining and reducing criteria,

> vastly cutting the number of combinations that can lead to an autism

> diagnosis.”/*

That's not statistics or probability. It's a restatement of the

" 35mm-slide problem " , wherein there are eight ways to insert a color

slide into a projector, but only one is the right way.

Volkmar is suggesting DSM-IV has 2000 ways to make a " diagnosis " ,

but only one or a few are the " right way " .

This completely misses the point. The entire mental-health industry has

been missing the point all along: *There are no criteria* for autism -

none that withstand close scrutiny as a " disorder " . *That* is the

problem with the DSM.

It's like porn: Everyone recognizes porn when they see it, but

nobody's able to define it to everyone's satisfaction.

It's like homosexuality, which covers a very wide range of behaviors --

and finally was *removed* from the DSM. ...As autism should be removed,

and *entirely re-considered*.

What's needed IMHO is a paradigm shift.

*Away* from autism/Asperger/spectrum as " disorder " or abnormality

and *toward recognition* of autism as just *another among many* obvious

human variations.

IMO autism doesn't belong in a compendium of " mental conditions " , nor

even in any medical textbooks. IF it's treated anywhere as noteworthy,

it should be in education, sociology, or even anthropology texts.

It'll happen; the paradigm will change. ...Solve a lot of " problems "

too, when it does.

Some respected professionals slowly *are* coming around. Recently

Dr. t Mottron in Canada has stated it very firmly:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\

-

Changing perceptions: The power of autism

t Mottron. Nature 479:33–35 03 November 2011.

doi:10.1038/479033a Published online 02 November 2011.

<http://rfautism.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=9d35fbdff297ed10517691815 & id=\

975ea18924 & e=c94b43261e>

<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7371/full/479033a.html>

" As a result, my research group and others believe that autism should be

described and investigated as a *variant within the human species* . "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\

-

NB: emphasis is mine -wdl

Even Attwood, Baron-Cohen, ...others, have mentioned the concept. In

print, even, but haven't yet been brave enough - *honest* enough - to

come right out with it.

>

> I wonder what the probability is based on a sample size of 10,000? I

> only ask as I am taking a STATS class and this caught my attention.

, I don't understand your question. " The probability " of what?

Sample size of what?

- Bill ...AS, retired geneticist

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

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

[Guest guest]

Bill:

Thank you! You answered my question.

Best.