Autism conference.
in [Autism]
|
Prev: Subtypes of autism
Next: Asperger's Achievements
From: Hylander on 24 Oct 2005 10:57 Thought you might want to know about this one: ie: you can bring an adult with autism perspective to the conference in case the curebie zealot shows up ;) H ----from my email------------- Hello all, Due to the huge popularity of the online conference, we have decided to extend it until October 27. We cannot rely on any more of the experts' time - although I may be able to persuade some of them to dip into the site every now and then. However, the extension will allow those delegates who may not yet have had a chance to join the discussions and exchange views to do so now. Those of you who have taken part in the immensely lively, stimulating and enlightening debates will be able to continue to do so for a few more days. By the way, I hope you will have noticed that the bulletin boards have speeded up greatly, thanks to the tremendous work of our technical experts. A reminder, once again, of the conference website: www.autism2005.org
From: The V person on 24 Oct 2005 11:27 "Hylander" <john.gagon(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1130165832.758222.23080(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Thought you might want to know about this one: > > ie: you can bring an adult with autism perspective to the conference in > case the curebie zealot shows up ;) > > H In case? The curbies come in all forms,,, even autists it seems. Well I am having a converstation with some one who thinks autism should be considered part of the normal bell curve... Now I don't understand bell curve that well.... but I don't know that I have an arguement for that type of thinking.... it is an interesting presumption though... Shall we throw out all convention and rely on statistics? V.
From: Hylander on 24 Oct 2005 13:52 The V person wrote: > "Hylander" <john.gagon(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1130165832.758222.23080(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Thought you might want to know about this one: > > > > ie: you can bring an adult with autism perspective to the conference in > > case the curebie zealot shows up ;) > > > > H > > In case? Yes...it was an understatement. ;) > The curbies come in all forms,,, > even autists it seems. Yes. And there might be small taints of curebie in all of us...perhaps in the form of trying to fit in with NTs when not necessary. We are saying to ourselves that our own way is inferior/we need adaptation/cure this aspect to be normal with the NTs. Not that it's necessarily and us vs. them either. It's as you say, sometimes us vs us and in between. > Well I am having a converstation with some one who thinks autism should be > considered part of the normal bell curve... Who is that? > Now I don't understand bell > curve that well.... but I don't know that I have an arguement for that type > of thinking.... it is an interesting presumption though... Shall we throw > out all convention and rely on statistics? Statistics are useful tools for studying and coming up with something objective. I highly doubt a bell curve of the general population is a good way of modelling the "spectrum". (and I definitely don't think everyone fits on the spectrum somewhere...it's more of an intra-autism continuum of functionality among those who share the autistic pattern via diagnostics/psychiatric understanding) There are too many variables for one thing and too many missed variables to use such simple analysis. Is there an "autisticness factor" being used that is just a comglomeration of all aspects of autism? Other kinds of statistics might work for parts of autistic understanding and it's used in genetics to correlated autism with genes..but I highly question a loose statement of basing autism on some curve. H
From: The V person on 24 Oct 2005 15:03 "Hylander" <john.gagon(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1130176339.905968.86720(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > The V person wrote: >> "Hylander" <john.gagon(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1130165832.758222.23080(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > Thought you might want to know about this one: >> > >> > ie: you can bring an adult with autism perspective to the conference in >> > case the curebie zealot shows up ;) >> > >> > H >> >> In case? > > Yes...it was an understatement. ;) > >> The curbies come in all forms,,, > > >> even autists it seems. > > Yes. And there might be small taints of curebie in all of us...perhaps > in the form of trying to fit in with NTs when not necessary. Yeah,, you are right it is a social mine field isn't it? We are > saying to ourselves that our own way is inferior/we need > adaptation/cure this aspect to be normal with the NTs. Not that it's > necessarily and us vs. them either. It's as you say, sometimes us vs us > and in between. "We" is rather a sweeping word. Well we can look at the autistic phenomenon from differnt angles and there are many. We want acceptance and we want help also for those of us who need it..... It may seem contradictory to some people and it is hard for some people to understand the word or accept "disabilty" maybe for some of us we do not have signifcant difficultys and for other we do and for others it is a mix. The probelm as I see it is when we all too black and white with our thinking..... I mean NT's and autists alike.. >> Well I am having a converstation with some one who thinks autism should >> be >> considered part of the normal bell curve... > > Who is that? Sebastian Dern Apparently he is a autistic person and a programmer? not sure on that but he contributes to this web site where Wendy Lawson has her paper.... http://www.autismandcomputing.org.uk/ >> Now I don't understand bell >> curve that well.... but I don't know that I have an arguement for that >> type >> of thinking.... it is an interesting presumption though... Shall we >> throw >> out all convention and rely on statistics? > > Statistics are useful tools for studying and coming up with something > objective. I highly doubt a bell curve of the general population is a > good way of modelling the "spectrum". (and I definitely don't think > everyone fits on the spectrum somewhere...it's more of an intra-autism > continuum of functionality among those who share the autistic pattern > via diagnostics/psychiatric understanding) Hmm maybe that is what Sebastian thinks is that everyone fits on the spectrum somewhere... He does ask some interesting questions though about what measurements do the autism researechers use to come up with there norms and abnormal hypothoses. Such as eye contact.... how do the researchers establish what is abnormal if not parameters of normal can be accessed. > There are too many variables for one thing and too many missed > variables to use such simple analysis. Is there an "autisticness > factor" being used that is just a comglomeration of all aspects of > autism? Other kinds of statistics might work for parts of autistic > understanding and it's used in genetics to correlated autism with > genes..but I highly question a loose statement of basing autism on some > curve. Well I would imagine that that type of thinking comes from not understanding the variables in the first place and that even though the word autism may not convey alot of meaning to some people it is all we have got for now until something else comes along.. Also in the world of people disability has some sort of negative connotation to it for some people so they want to assert that disability doesn't exist or something like that... Vicky
From: Terry Jones on 24 Oct 2005 15:52
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:27:25 GMT, "The V person" <Victorious(a)cantbebothered.net> wrote: > Well I am having a converstation with some one who thinks autism should be >considered part of the normal bell curve... Now I don't understand bell >curve that well.... but I don't know that I have an arguement for that type >of thinking.... it is an interesting presumption though... Shall we throw >out all convention and rely on statistics? Not all traits follow a bell curve - height does, but eye colour doesn't (for instance). I suspect that something like "hearing voices" doesn't either - you have a large population who essentially don't, and then a smaller sub-population who do (or come to do) to a greater or lesser extent. My guess is that many traits of autism probably more resemble two overlapping sub-populations than they do a single population. As I say, it's just a guess, but so is their claim - next time you could ask what the *evidence* is that it follows a normal distribution curve, rather than some other distribution. I'd bet that they'll just argue that "it's obvious" or something like that, or "argue by analogy" without having anything to back up their assumptions - But not all distributions in nature are bell curves. Terry |