Autism: An Epidemic of the 21st Century?

[Bynary Fission]

Autism: A Global Epidemic?

In the past ten years, autism has been diagnosed in greater and greater numbers. Some people say it is an epidemic that is affecting all of today's children in ever increasing numbers. I have contemplated and studied this subject much, considering I have the condition. And really, I think it has been enumerated to the point where it has become all a bunch of 'hot air'. I am not denying that the issue indeed lies within society and has it's effects, but autism is not terminal. It is not fatal.

At the age of 9, I was diagnosed with Asperger's. Contrary to what many people say about autism, it was not the end of the world. I wasn't going to be retarded and anti-social my whole life. And I would not need extensive behavioral and motor therapy. In fact, I do not possess half of the symptoms that would be expected of somebody like me. Normally, I would be expected to be antisocial, brilliant in one specific area, have intense interests in one area, and have motor impairments, among other things. But I don't. Therefore, this makes me think critically about the subject: Is autism really as bad as it is made out to be? And if it is, what causes it?

People say the thimerosal in vaccines causes autism. It has been proven not to. But, if that is not the reason, why are we seeing about 1-166 kids diagnosed with it? Fifty years ago, autism was so rare almost nobody had heard of it. The diagnosis rate was under 1-10000. And if a child was diagnosed with it, he was thrown into an institution, and the mother was condemned as being cold and distant, i.e a "refrigerator" mother. Now, the condition is so prevalent that this theory has been discarded and it is seen as a true, legitimate neurological disorder. But, as the symptoms are better known and more research has been done, the diagnosis rate has spiraled upwards, leaving those to speculate if it was there all along, or if other external environmental factors have exacerbated the prevalence of autism.

Personally, I believe that, for the most part, autism was always there. But it was misdiagnosed, instead psychologists believing the child was mentally retarded (many are), or severely emotionally disturbed. Now, the autism spectrum is better known, and a more accurate diagnosis can been made. So naturally, the incidence rate would appear to climb, though the belief that it actually has is, personally, erroneous. But, other diseases and disorders have also climbed substantially in the last 50 years. Therefore, I suspect that the toxins in foods have a partial effect on this phenomenon. But there are other more clandestine factors that may be unnoticed yet.

Fifty years ago, the German pharmaceutical company Grunenthal synthesized the drug Thalidomide. This was believed to be a miracle cure for morning sickness in pregnancy, among other things; it was marketed as a sleeping drug however. At that time, the placental barrier test was not required, so they didn't bother with it, instead saying the drug did NOT reach the fetus. Phocomilia, an extremely rare disorder that causes you to be born without arms or legs, had one case of it reported in 50 years, giving it an estimated prevalence rate at the time of 1-250,000,000. Yet in the 4 years that the drug was marketed, over 10000 babies with the condition were born. This was not known for several years until a placental barrier test was performed. So in light of that tragic event, could another factor that causes autism be right under our noses? Who knows.

I think the statement that it is an epidemic is stupid. Why? Because better diagnoses and more knowledge in autism naturally give the illusion that it is somehow spiking in incidences. Plus, many more babies are being born than 50 years ago. Therefore, more children will be diagnosed with the condition. I acknowledge that the incidence is rather abnormally high. I believe the garbage in our foods, genetics, and teratogens have contributed to the rising rate in autism. I just don't believe it's an EPIDEMIC. Do we really want another ADHD? Most were misdiagnosed, and those poor children were put on Ritalin. In fact, some professionals wanted me on it. I do not need Ritalin, I function fine. So one wonders if autism is being over-diagnosed. And finally, my last question. Is autism as bad as some make it out to be?

Like I mentioned earlier, I have autism. I am extremely fortunate in that I am barely "afflicted" with it anymore (It used to be worse). I have autistic friends, and believe me, it makes me ever more thankful to be who I am. But they are not so fortunate. One of my best friends has PDD-NOS. He has a low IQ, almost non-existent social skills, and displays huge eccentricities, such as a fascination with fire alarms and clapping really hard when he gets excited. But he functions rather well. And then there is me. I have an extremely high IQ, I have musical, mathematical, and scientific talents and gifts. I have only slightly sub-par social skills, and I do not have extreme interests in one area, and my intelligence is broad, not concentrated like other typical children with Asperger's. And then there are my friends from my social group two years back. Some of them had autism, but they weren't mentally retarded, nor did they have noticeable eccentricities. So, what's all the buzz about? I know that I have not seen the worst of autism. I know that tens of thousands of children are moderately or severely retarded, unable to talk and in need of major therapy. I feel bad for them, but I am happy that they receive the care that they need. But, few autistic children are truly able to voice how they feel, and if all this attention is necessary. Some say that it is a death sentence, others say that it is a disease, and a few are brazen enough to label it "mad child disease". But, why not listen to those who actually have it before speaking out of your ass? Autism affects a lot of people, and it scares people. But autism is not as bad as it is labeled. Most of my peers thought all people with autism were mentally retarded. Is it any wonder some blow this all out of proportion? In truth, only a small number of autistics are affected severely with the condition, unable to speak or produce excessive echolalia. I believe that before autism can be labeled an "epidemic", we need to understand this condition better and how it truly affects children. But most importantly, they need actual testimonies from the autistics themselves. Not the professionals, not the teachers, and not the parents. I have a voice, and I proclaim to all that it is not what people make it out to be. I urge you to ask others, and learn from them and their first-hand experience with this condition before people panic and say that autism is a disease that needs to be systematically exterminated. People with autistics who are believed to have no voice do. A 13-year old autistic named Carly was on the news yesterday, and she is unable to speak. But using a computer text-to-speech translator, she found her voice, and could tell others how she felt. Beautiful story.

I urge you to give me your thought and opinions, as I passionately wrote this post and I would love to see what you think of this pressing issue.


~Bynary Fission

[devonin]

I think that saying aspergers and autism are "the same thing" really misses the gaping chasm of difference between the two. It seems to me that Autism and Aspergers are the same like a twisted ankle and a leg broken in 5 places are the same. Both are leg injuries, but they are hardly comperable in severity.

I do agree though that aspergers at least is ridiculously overdiagnosed and is probably the most commonly self-diagnosed condition besides ADD.

When I was younger, and to many extents today, I meet the exact list of symptoms for asperger's. At no point in my life has it ever occured to me to self-diagnose or seek a proper diagnosis of that condition. From my experience, it is used most commonly as a shield to hide behind to explain away ones deficiencies. Anti-social? No people skills? As long as you're really good at something, or are intelligent, you can blame your condition for that.

I think that as a culture, north americans have a long history of trying to blame problem children on anything but problem parenting. For my childhood and adolescence it was ADD and ADHD with rampant overuse of Ritalin. Child doing poorly at school? Won't do their homework? Must have ADD. We'll forget that they can spent 6 straight hours concentrating on TV or video games, surely all their problems are the fault of a medical condition!

In recent years I've seen the same thing with Aspergers. A whole generation of kids who want to justify sitting in their rooms on the computer, coupled with a whole generation of parents who want to feel good about the fact that their neglect has led to kids with no social skills.

Surely it is a real and valid condition, and many people have it, but the numbers are, in my opinion, highly inflated by self- and mis-diagnosis.

[Bynary Fission]

Originally Posted by devonin

I think that saying aspergers and autism are "the same thing" really misses the gaping chasm of difference between the two. It seems to me that Autism and Aspergers are the same like a twisted ankle and a leg broken in 5 places are the same. Both are leg injuries, but they are hardly comperable in severity.

I do agree though that aspergers at least is ridiculously overdiagnosed and is probably the most commonly self-diagnosed condition besides ADD.

When I was younger, and to many extents today, I meet the exact list of symptoms for asperger's. At no point in my life has it ever occured to me to self-diagnose or seek a proper diagnosis of that condition. From my experience, it is used most commonly as a shield to hide behind to explain away ones deficiencies. Anti-social? No people skills? As long as you're really good at something, or are intelligent, you can blame your condition for that.

I think that as a culture, north americans have a long history of trying to blame problem children on anything but problem parenting. For my childhood and adolescence it was ADD and ADHD with rampant overuse of Ritalin. Child doing poorly at school? Won't do their homework? Must have ADD. We'll forget that they can spent 6 straight hours concentrating on TV or video games, surely all their problems are the fault of a medical condition!

In recent years I've seen the same thing with Aspergers. A whole generation of kids who want to justify sitting in their rooms on the computer, coupled with a whole generation of parents who want to feel good about the fact that their neglect has led to kids with no social skills.

Surely it is a real and valid condition, and many people have it, but the numbers are, in my opinion, highly inflated by self- and mis-diagnosis.

I did differentiate between them, though I never explicitly stated they were different...I should have been a tad more clear. But I don't believe they are the same, to settle the matter.

My mother forces me to work hard, and even without her I'd still work hard. It's in my blood I guess. But yeah, the condition does exist, and in some cases it can be debilitating. Ever wonder what it feels like to be hated by all and to have no friends..and be unable to make them because you don't know how? It pushes many autistics to the edge. Kids with Asperger's are most known to be like that. And while many kids have terrible parents who don't care about anything, I do think that others should realize that the child may really need help, and the child may seek escapes such as slacking off and going to video games or the computer. I don't suffer from a lack of friends, but many who do not like me do not understand why I tend to be immature or very annoying at times. I can barely control the impulses, and it is HARD not to act out on them, especially if I don't like them. When I say immature or annoying, I mean like saying things that aren't appropriate, or doing something that is annoying over and over. I am a mature person with immature tendencies...but only at school, mysteriously. Might be because it is a very stressful environment for me.


~Bynary Fission

[devonin]

Ever wonder what it feels like to be hated by all and to have no friends..and be unable to make them because you don't know how? It pushes many autistics to the edge. Kids with Asperger's are most known to be like that.

Yes I know exactly what that is like, because as I mentioned, that is precisely reflective of my own childhood. I 100% absolutely would have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome had I sought any kind of medical explanation for my "condition" and probably still would.

My whole point is that using a condition to justify the negative parts of one's life also makes it so that condition is to credit for its positive aspects, and that is something I had no interest in doing, while pointing out that this is precisely what many people have done.

Rather than have it be concluded "It's okay, he has a condition, he can't help how he is" I instead just dealt with it and learned how to cope. I developed social skills, I have friends, I know how to deal with other people. I did it without medication, without special treatment, and without ever even knowing there was an -option- to contribute my lack of social skills to a mental condition.

[Bynary Fission]

Indeed. I look upon it as a blessing..because it has most likely made me smarter and more creative than I could have ever hoped to be. I never have and never will use it as an excuse to justify when I screw up, and while it cannot be used as an excuse, it can explain who somebody does something wrong or strange...and people can at least be more understanding. And empathy is the one thing almost everybody who doesn't understand the negative aspects of X condition lacks or fails to adopt, making it harder for those who have it, inducing feelings of isolation that can be very painful.


~Bynary Fission

[devonin]

I never have and never will use it as an excuse to justify when I screw up, and while it cannot be used as an excuse, it can explain who somebody does something wrong or strange...and people can at least be more understanding.

If it explains what you do wrong, it also explains what you do right. I'd rather be an intelligent, knowledgeable person with a strong degree of analytical ability who also happened to have some social problems that I eventually overcame, than someone who "has aspergers"

[lord_carbo]

I, too, experienced a lot of the symptoms of Asperger's as a child (silence, intelligence, learned English quickly), and I could have been diagnosed with it at any time until I finally became aware of social cues like annoyance, disinterest, and disregard (I can thank the Internet for that, actually).

When I "learned" I had "ADHD," I actually became better at controlling it because I had never been conscious of how annoying I was. I went to a therapist but that felt mostly irrelevant because I didn't do much there. My ADHD was rarely discussed and therapy served best as a friendly reminder that I had problems that needed fixing. And that happened over time.

In my opinion, treating things like a condition changes everything. Suddenly we are less accountable for our shortcomings as well as our successes; suddenly we are treated systematically instead of by our individual needs, which-- I would say always-- does not requires amphetamines to fix. I believe that classification of most cases of Asperger's and all cases of ADHD undermine the individual and the individual problems that person has-- problems that are completely fixable through training and determination. There are people with real problems, but you usually won't find them with ADHD or Asperger's. And maybe if we stopped marginally classifying people by their behavior, we'd lose the notion that the human psyche is so hard to change. I changed from what I already had. I used my intelligence to start picking up on social cues and relating them to how I felt. And through my intelligence, I jumped from the social skills of a 3rd grader to the level of the rest of my peers by the beginning of 8th grade. I also matured out of my impatience and hyperactivity, a product of my youthfulness and whim. Now my patience makes other seems like they have ADHD, not I.

Well, that's basically the gist of what I have to say.

[Kilroy_x]

Psychologists are not beyond corn pone opinions. The entire DSM is filled with sliding signifiers. They might as well have just chosen labels like jerk, prick, douche, and bitch, they would have been equally substantive. There is a problem with psychology as a field, and that is that for the first half of its existence it was built predominately on unfalsifiable theories. Freud, Adler, Jung, etc. However, the tendency towards elaborate story telling rather than factual exploration never really went away, and we can see that in theorists like Fromm, who remained prominent and respected well into last century, and probably remains so among too many. The field is not an island either, so we see it moves in tandem with social movements. People heralded it as a triumph when homosexuality was removed from the DSM. This was a diagnosis held in place by largely by the prevalence of "psychoanalytic" theories. However, the diagnosis did not disappear as a result of scientific progress, but as the consequence of a social movement, which unfortunately just further demonstrates the overwhelming triviality of the average movement within the field.

People tend to have a preference for story telling over proposition and refutation when it comes to things they consider sacred. It is humanities arrogance and self-importance that renders them incapable of accurately assessing what is in a mirror.

Here is the great mystery to me. Why does every label formulated automatically import a pejorative property? No, I'm not trying to do something as superficial as disprove the existence of a "normal" category. That horse has been beaten to death already. I'm asking why every new variety of human consciousness discovered has to be a disease.

[Bynary Fission]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

I'm asking why every new variety of human consciousness discovered has to be a disease.

Well, if there is something wrong with a human, then they automatically assume that there is a problem with him..and if you have a problem, they'll think it's a disease since diseases cause problems in humans.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Psychologists are not beyond corn pone opinions. The entire DSM is filled with sliding signifiers. They might as well have just chosen labels like jerk, prick, douche, and bitch, they would have been equally substantive. There is a problem with psychology as a field, and that is that for the first half of its existence it was built predominately on unfalsifiable theories. Freud, Adler, Jung, etc. However, the tendency towards elaborate story telling rather than factual exploration never really went away, and we can see that in theorists like Fromm, who remained prominent and respected well into last century, and probably remains so among too many. The field is not an island either, so we see it moves in tandem with social movements. People heralded it as a triumph when homosexuality was removed from the DSM. This was a diagnosis held in place by largely by the prevalence of "psychoanalytic" theories. However, the diagnosis did not disappear as a result of scientific progress, but as the consequence of a social movement, which unfortunately just further demonstrates the overwhelming triviality of the average movement within the field.

People tend to have a preference for story telling over proposition and refutation when it comes to things they consider sacred. It is humanities arrogance and self-importance that renders them incapable of accurately assessing what is in a mirror.

Here is the great mystery to me. Why does every label formulated automatically import a pejorative property? No, I'm not trying to do something as superficial as disprove the existence of a "normal" category. That horse has been beaten to death already. I'm asking why every new variety of human consciousness discovered has to be a disease.

And THAT is the reason I hate various tests that they give, above all...IQ tests. For god sakes, the IQ test was originally devised to "prove" that the white man was smarter than the black man. It doesn't even measure intelligence, so why measure it with an inconsequential test that gives inconsequential results? Yes, they label everything. Yes, Psychology was built off of idiocy, ignorance, discrimination, and "discoveries" about humans that were nowhere near the truth. Humans have to slap a label on everything so they can "treat" it, because they don't like it when others are non-conforming to others, that they are somehow different....

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

I, too, experienced a lot of the symptoms of Asperger's as a child (silence, intelligence, learned English quickly), and I could have been diagnosed with it at any time until I finally became aware of social cues like annoyance, disinterest, and disregard (I can thank the Internet for that, actually).

When I "learned" I had "ADHD," I actually became better at controlling it because I had never been conscious of how annoying I was. I went to a therapist but that felt mostly irrelevant because I didn't do much there. My ADHD was rarely discussed and therapy served best as a friendly reminder that I had problems that needed fixing. And that happened over time.

In my opinion, treating things like a condition changes everything. Suddenly we are less accountable for our shortcomings as well as our successes; suddenly we are treated systematically instead of by our individual needs, which-- I would say always-- does not requires amphetamines to fix. I believe that classification of most cases of Asperger's and all cases of ADHD undermine the individual and the individual problems that person has-- problems that are completely fixable through training and determination. There are people with real problems, but you usually won't find them with ADHD or Asperger's. And maybe if we stopped marginally classifying people by their behavior, we'd lose the notion that the human psyche is so hard to change. I changed from what I already had. I used my intelligence to start picking up on social cues and relating them to how I felt. And through my intelligence, I jumped from the social skills of a 3rd grader to the level of the rest of my peers by the beginning of 8th grade. I also matured out of my impatience and hyperactivity, a product of my youthfulness and whim. Now my patience makes other seems like they have ADHD, not I.

Well, that's basically the gist of what I have to say.

That great to hear! However, sometimes a perceived issue is not an issue at all...for example, kids with Asperger's tend to have extreme intelligence in one or more areas, but I had to go to a social club to not speak formally or sound intelligent, among other things. I'm not stupid. If somebody can't understand me, get a book and read, moron. I didn't spend all these years learning and educating myself to have to dumb myself down for some idiot who plays video games all day. Some of the greatest geniuses of all time are thought to have Asperger's, including van Goethe, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein. The issue lies in human ignorance, not ourselves.

Now the real problems I already took care of. If you didn't know I had a condition, the last thing you would suspect is autism. And I am proud to say it, as I have worked as hard as you to change and mature. But humans slap labels on everything..jeez lay off will you, if I was fine before what thinks some diagnosis is going to make me any better?


~Bynary Fission

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Psychologists are not beyond corn pone opinions.

True, and that goes for basically every field, from economics to (most sadly) biology. It only serves as a friendly reminder than an enlightenment.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Here is the great mystery to me. Why does every label formulated automatically import a pejorative property? No, I'm not trying to do something as superficial as disprove the existence of a "normal" category. That horse has been beaten to death already. I'm asking why every new variety of human consciousness discovered has to be a disease.

Well your question can be interpreted two ways: "why are things discovered considered pejorative?" and "why do we tend to discover only 'pejorative' properties?"

To the first interpretation, I would say because they're considered to be abnormalities or shortcomings. The classification of more and more "diseases" leads us to a more constrained definition of what "normal" is; like an inferno that spits oil and wood. One can only imagine how far it can go: will procrastination become a symptom of something else? But if everybody is special, who is? It would seem that a tendency to not procrastinate is a special, almost "superhuman" trait that deserves its own classification.

To the latter, I have no answer. Most likely biases in approaches in research, as if idealism is not abnormal and deserving of a rightful seat.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by Bynary Fission

That great to hear! However, sometimes a perceived issue is not an issue at all...for example, kids with Asperger's tend to have extreme intelligence in one or more areas, but I had to go to a social club to not speak formally or sound intelligent, among other things. I'm not stupid. If somebody can't understand me, get a book and read, moron. I didn't spend all these years learning and educating myself to have to dumb myself down for some idiot who plays video games all day. Some of the greatest geniuses of all time are thought to have Asperger's, including van Goethe, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein. The issue lies in human ignorance, not ourselves.

A) Your diatribe really has nothing to do with anything.
B) English is a medium with which communication is made, not something to flaunt knowledge of for no apparent reason. You don't talk with big words, so I doubt the complaints of your peers hold validity. Nevertheless, it is an important point to remember when language does become bogged down.

Originally Posted by Bynary Fission

Now the real problems I already took care of. If you didn't know I had a condition, the last thing you would suspect is autism. And I am proud to say it, as I have worked as hard as you to change and mature. But humans slap labels on everything..jeez lay off will you, if I was fine before what thinks some diagnosis is going to make me any better?

The problem is more about labeling from oneself than from others. And again, this paragraph is mostly just another gnarled string with no ends. When you make a post, you should consider what and how it contributes. If you had, I would not be responding. So as offensive as this is, you should change "have worked" to "am working."

[Bynary Fission]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

A) Your diatribe really has nothing to do with anything.
B) English is a medium with which communication is made, not something to flaunt knowledge of for no apparent reason. You don't talk with big words, so I doubt the complaints of your peers hold validity. Nevertheless, it is an important point to remember when language does become bogged down.

Then you did not read what I said. I was reflecting upon what Kilroy_x had to say about Psychology and it's flaws, and I concur with what he says, and I posted in response to that thought with my own. And also, I do not flaunt my knowledge. That is something some people tell me, but if I sound like I have any bit of intelligence, people condemn me for being arrogant or pedantic. I am not saying that you are mentioning this about me, but after years of getting those responses from people, I tend to think that they just don't understand what I am saying and don't like it. I post very formally in this forum, where it appreciated and built upon.

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

The problem is more about labeling from oneself than from others. And again, this paragraph is mostly just another gnarled string with no ends. When you make a post, you should consider what and how it contributes. If you had, I would not be responding. So as offensive as this is, you should change "have worked" to "am working."

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

A) Your diatribe really has nothing to do with anything.
B) English is a medium with which communication is made, not something to flaunt knowledge of for no apparent reason. You don't talk with big words, so I doubt the complaints of your peers hold validity. Nevertheless, it is an important point to remember when language does become bogged down.


The problem is more about labeling from oneself than from others. And again, this paragraph is mostly just another gnarled string with no ends. When you make a post, you should consider what and how it contributes. If you had, I would not be responding. So as offensive as this is, you should change "have worked" to "am working."

I am simply responding to what I believed about myself. However, I apologize if I offended you, I can be a bit tactless at times with my statements at times. However, it is a pressing issue to me and every step I make is a triumph, and I reflect it in such statements. Again, I am sorry if I offended you.


~Bynary Fission

[Reach]

And THAT is the reason I hate various tests that they give, above all...IQ tests. For god sakes, the IQ test was originally devised to "prove" that the white man was smarter than the black man. It doesn't even measure intelligence, so why measure it with an inconsequential test that gives inconsequential results? Yes, they label everything. Yes, Psychology was built off of idiocy, ignorance, discrimination, and "discoveries" about humans that were nowhere near the truth. Humans have to slap a label on everything so they can "treat" it, because they don't like it when others are non-conforming to others, that they are somehow different....

Wow.

The first IQ test was actually developed by Binet, to identify those that would have problems academically. And guess what, they worked. Extremely well at that, and they work even better today. Slavery was abolished some 50 years before the IQ test, and a test has never been constructed to show that one race is smarter than another. This was maybe, at best, practiced by some individuals that had nothing to do with the development of the test.

As for measuring intelligence, there are a whole lot of people that would disagree. They tap highly into 'something' at least, that all humans posses in different quantities that is proportional to their ability. Whether or not you want to call this intelligence doesn't change the fact that it can be measured, at least to some degree, and that it's important.

And that's nice to see you're incredibly ignorant of and ungrateful for the things advances in psychology and neuroscience has brought to society. I'm also glad you've somehow managed to clump all of psychology into the field of abnormal psychology (and well, clinical). That's quite the feat...

[Kilroy_x]

Tragically most discussion of IQ testing doesn't occur in statistical courses but in sociology courses.

[Goldenwind]

In relationships, men are made out to look like fools.
In the working world, women are made to look stupid.

For argument's sake (And trying to reduce stereotypes), let's call it even on how intelligent the average male or female is.

Physically, due to biology, males are stronger than females.

So, in one category, they're even. In the other, males win.

Therefore, males > females.

Problem with this proof? Who says that intelligence+strength measures human value?
The funny thing is, we all know what is right, we all know what is wrong, and we all know the answers to this thread, yet we still debate it anyway.

And the reason for this? Human fallacy.
Human stupidity will be the cause of its own destruction. If it's not directly, it'll be indirectly, such as being too caught up with our heads up our behinds to solve a problem that we could.

[xinpig]

I too have Asperger's. It takes alot to be able to tell who has it and who doesn't. One of my really good friends had it and I never even knew/suspected it.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Goldenwind

For argument's sake (And trying to reduce stereotypes), let's call it even on how intelligent the average male or female is.

For arguments sake, why don't you look at statistics on the subject?

The funny thing is, we all know what is right, we all know what is wrong, and we all know the answers to this thread, yet we still debate it anyway.

And the reason for this? Human fallacy.
Human stupidity will be the cause of its own destruction. If it's not directly, it'll be indirectly, such as being too caught up with our heads up our behinds to solve a problem that we could.

You're right, questioning assumptions is the most foolish thing ever. I mean, that's what we killed Socrates for after all. I'm just going to assume the verdict was legitimate.

[xinpig]

i dont understand why people act so much differently when they know that you are different. but it is human nature to fear that which is different from you

[Bynary Fission]

Originally Posted by Reach

Wow.

The first IQ test was actually developed by Binet, to identify those that would have problems academically. And guess what, they worked. Extremely well at that, and they work even better today. Slavery was abolished some 50 years before the IQ test, and a test has never been constructed to show that one race is smarter than another. This was maybe, at best, practiced by some individuals that had nothing to do with the development of the test.

As for measuring intelligence, there are a whole lot of people that would disagree. They tap highly into 'something' at least, that all humans posses in different quantities that is proportional to their ability. Whether or not you want to call this intelligence doesn't change the fact that it can be measured, at least to some degree, and that it's important.

And that's nice to see you're incredibly ignorant of and ungrateful for the things advances in psychology and neuroscience has brought to society. I'm also glad you've somehow managed to clump all of psychology into the field of abnormal psychology (and well, clinical). That's quite the feat...

No, I am not. Look at my links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:N...Inequality.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T..._with_Jobs.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...ransparent.png


Right there is the reason that I do not trust IQ tests. When IQ tests were adjusted for blacks, then they scored more on-par with whites. An IQ of ~85-86 makes you mentally deficient. Not mentally retarded, but deficient. Yet, upon seeing the countless blacks in my schools, this is just not always the case. My 7th grade school has a black population of almost 40%. My 8th grade school had a black population of ~17% and a Hispanic population of over 70%. Yet many were average intelligence or more. So why do these tests show them 10+ points below whites? 10 points is a lot. 15 points is a whole deviation. The tests are geared towards whites. The old tests contained verbal analogies and the like because blacks would not understand them. Maybe slavery ended more than 60 years before the inception of IQ tests, but blacks were barely looked upon as even human for many more years. And since so few treated blacks with the dignity and respect they deserved, why do you think somebody who made IQ tests to measure intelligence would make it fair? Since so many were biased against blacks, making tests to "prove" that their IQ was lower than whites would only fuel the belief that they were inferior to whites. Look at my second chart. It shows that over half of African nations were mentally retarded. Most of the rest had IQs below 80. And even in other sites will show the same disparity. If the whole nation was mentally retarded, then how could they exist and advance as a society?

Given the fact that education is poor in most African nations, their IQ will naturally be much lower than the developed nations. I acknowledge this. But if almost everybody had IQs below 65, then many couldn't even learn to speak a language fluently, much less build and sustain an entire country and civilization. Think about it. If you left a bunch of kids in a room who had IQs of say, 62, and asked them to build something, could they do it? Probably not. Even without any training, many kids can build something, even if it's really bad. But if you asked them to build a hut, then asked them to memorize a bunch of hunting locations, then had them learn all the techniques for foraging and building weapons and tools, could they do it? With a LOT of special therapy and training, possibly. I am not berating them, but I am being realistic. Many African kids probably have to do such things by a young age to survive, especially in the completely undeveloped parts of Africa.

So for this reason, IQ test are NOT accurate, and are a poor measure of intelligence, in my opinion. I scored an IQ of 108 in 3rd grade. Now, five years later, I am going to graduate with my bachelors at 17. I can learn a language in under a month, based on rates I learned to speak at least some of other languages. I can learn even very difficult subjects lightning fast. Can a person with IQ of 108 easily accomplish that? Probably not. So really, in my opinion, most IQ tests are garbage for people other than whites. It applies with kids with autism. I score well on many IQ tests, but not all. Many kids I have seen with autism are not stupid. Many are mentally retarded, but not all. I have seen kids who are extremely intelligent, yet do not score well on IQ tests. IQ is only a way to get an estimate, but until they come out with a better IQ test, I don't trust them nor do I like them.

And finally, I do appreciate many of the advances that have been made. Without it, drug addicts or sociopaths could never be cured or made better. Without it, we would never understand the body-mind connection, and how the human brain works. But considering 50 years ago, kids with mental impairments, including autism, would be thrown into institutions at a young age and be treated like animals, never to be seen again...I am still skeptical of some of psychology's advances.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

While psychology makes it's mistakes, some mistakes can be damaging. Aversion therapy is an example of an abhorrent aberration that should never have been introduced in the first place. Homosexuals in some countries would be shocked upon looking at nude pictures of the same sex, and they would be chemically castrated, among other things. Also, diagnosing people with the wrong disorders can be damaging. If somebody is diagnosed with, say, ADHD, yet does not truly have it, will it matter? No. That child will be put on drugs that he doesn't need, and potentially even get therapy. Kids are being diagnosed with autism too much, in my opinion. If he's socially deficient and right-brained, does that make him autistic? No. With a few lessons in social skills, he could be completely normal socially. And for being right-brained, let him explore his full potential in the arts. A woman was diagnosed with an IQ of 55 about 50 years ago. They wanted her thrown in an institution. Guess what? Today she sings in 32 languages. Mentally retarded? I think not. So, I think we need to better understand what is being diagnosed before they made diagnoses, especially if it's something as enigmatic as autism...


P.S Sorry for the belated response, I have been very busy and I have not had time to make long posts like this.


~Bynary Fission

[atalkingcow]

Originally Posted by Bynary Fission

While psychology makes it's mistakes, some mistakes can be damaging. Aversion therapy is an example of an abhorrent aberration that should never have been introduced in the first place. <b>Homosexuals in some countries would be shocked upon looking at nude pictures of the same sex, and they would be chemically castrated, among other things.</b> Also, diagnosing people with the wrong disorders can be damaging. <b><i>If somebody is diagnosed with, say, ADHD, yet does not truly have it, will it matter? No. That child will be put on drugs that he doesn't need, and potentially even get therapy.</b></i> Kids are being diagnosed with autism too much, in my opinion. If he's socially deficient and right-brained, does that make him autistic? No. With a few lessons in social skills, he could be completely normal socially. And for being right-brained, let him explore his full potential in the arts. A woman was diagnosed with an IQ of 55 about 50 years ago. They wanted her thrown in an institution. Guess what? Today she sings in 32 languages. Mentally retarded? I think not. So, I think we need to better understand what is being diagnosed before they made diagnoses, especially if it's something as enigmatic as autism...


P.S Sorry for the belated response, I have been very busy and I have not had time to make long posts like this.


~Bynary Fission

I don't quite follow what you are trying to say with the homosexuals thing...please elaborate. ^_^

As for the italic part: I strongly disagree.
When I was put on several drugs over the course of my life, to treat various "mental disorders" that I was diagnosed with... (all false btw) they had disastrous effects, including knocking me out for an entire week in 7th grade.

We (as a nation) not only over-diagnose, we over-medicate like it's going out of style, and it really needs to stop, IMO.