Jump to content

Electroconvulsive therapy right into your brain - Elon claims BCI can solve Autism

williamcll
1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

I suspect that people who have the kinds of problems you describe wouldn’t be in the catagory of people who would prefer not to have this done, especially if they are young.

Maybe, but like I said it affects around 85% of college graduates with autism. The remaining 15% might be fine though.

 

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

You apparently want to do an experimental procedure on me where they stick electrodes in my brain in the hopes that it will make me more hirable but might not actually work but no matter whether it does or doesn’t is likely to cause profound changes in my personality.

No that's not what I want.

Did you miss the two very big disclaimers I made in my post? Here they are again since you missed both of them the first time:

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

No thanks, not IF we can prevent it (massive if).

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

*This obviously assumes that we had a magic pill that cured everything without dramatic side effects (and no, I don't think "removing part of their personality is a valid side effect). I am not saying we should blanket force all autistic people to do this experimental stuff.

 

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

I guess from my perspective it’s not quite the gas chamber from the 40s.  It’s very close, but not quite.  You wouldn’t be killing me, exactly.  Very close, but not quite.

It's not even close. Do you honestly think treating autism is the same as gasing someone to death for their religious beliefs? Like, seriously?

 

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

And as I understand this your primary concern is money, correct?

No, not at all. I gave multiple reasons including autistic people ending up in more fights and the life quality of their parents/partners being significantly worse in general. I highlighted the part about autistic people often having very big difficulties finding and maintaining jobs because it is a clear example of how the majority of autistic people make society worse, by leeching from it rather than contributing. It seemed to me like you wanted examples of how someone having autism could make the lives of other people worse, so I gave it to you.

They make the lives of their close ones more difficult, resulting in lower life quality of the ones around them.

They are more violent in general and end up physically attacking more money than the norm.

They cost society money which could be spent on other things, such as health care for other sick patience. Saying that you do not want to be used and would rather stay a burden is essentially telling a cancer patience "you do not deserve better treatment because I do not want to change my personality".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Maybe, but like I said it affects around 85% of college graduates with autism. The remaining 15% might be fine though.

 

No that's not what I want.

Did you miss the two very big disclaimers I made in my post? Here they are again since you missed both of them the first time:

 

It's not even close. Do you honestly think treating autism is the same as gasing someone to death for their religious beliefs? Like, seriously?

 

No, not at all. I gave multiple reasons including autistic people ending up in more fights and the life quality of their parents/partners being significantly worse in general. I highlighted the part about autistic people often having very big difficulties finding and maintaining jobs because it is a clear example of how the majority of autistic people make society worse, by leeching from it rather than contributing. It seemed to me like you wanted examples of how someone having autism could make the lives of other people worse, so I gave it to you.

They make the lives of their close ones more difficult, resulting in lower life quality of the ones around them.

They are more violent in general and end up physically attacking more money than the norm.

They cost society money which could be spent on other things, such as health care for other sick patience. Saying that you do not want to be used and would rather stay a burden is essentially telling a cancer patience "you do not deserve better treatment because I do not want to change my personality".

Re: why it isn’t what you want:

Those may have been in other different posts.  I believe I quoted what you wrote in the post I reacted to.

 

re: gassing.  

I’m talking about what happened.  Religious beliefs weren’t the only reason.  The nazis also interned disabled people for more or less the reasons you outlined.  At least at first. The belief that such would be done was downplayed because of war injuries.  It did still happen some.  My point still stands.
 

re: money. 
you did say why you felt it was justified.  It wasn’t the reason you gave for actually acting though.  That reason was “drain on society” and cost.  A not inaccurate translation of the nazi reasoning actually.  You then state autistic people are violent, and then go back to the money thing.  The way I am reading your rebuttal is it is actually an agreement.

Not a pro, not even very good.  I’m just old and have time currently.  Assuming I know a lot about computers can be a mistake.

 

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It's not even close. Do you honestly think treating autism is the same as gasing someone to death for their religious beliefs? Like, seriously?

 

 

About to head off for a nap but i assume you'd be ok with the same techniques being applied then to deal with people who are racist or sexist, or have other personality factors that are negatively detrimental to society in most situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Yeah exactly. Why shouldn't alcoholics just be left alone? Why can't we just leave bipolar people to themselves? Why should schizophrenic people need "treatment"? Just let these people be like they are!

Because those are totally different things. Autism is part of a person, it makes up in part who they are. You cannot suddenly take that away without massively changing them. Alcoholism is an addiction, and while it is a mental illness it is nothing in any way like ASD. Bipolar is a chemical imbalance, again something very different to ASD. Autism is a spectrum of things and while some may need a lot of looking after, others can and do live a normal and occasionally exceptional life. It is not something that should be taken away just because it makes others feel uncomfortable. I for one would not want any treatment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2019 at 9:20 AM, Technous285 said:

Don't be so fucking naive, you know as well as I do that once someone has made a scientific or technological breakthrough, there WILL be someone right around the corner waiting to abuse said breakthrough for their own personal means.

I think you are being naive. And, to some extent, short-sighted, since your own example goes against what you are trying to claim.

Scientific research, if anything, has brought about less prejudice, not more. On the other hand, your Nazi example precisely shows that bigotry will run with whatever they have, it doesn't need any research to support it; in fact, it will go against research if needed, including persecution of researchers who oppose it, and the promotion of "research" and pseudo-science that serves its agenda. If there's anything your Hitler example proves is that bigoted pushes for eugenics need no scientific basis, and will thrive and fall for reasons other than actual scientific breakthroughs. It has nothing to do with using or abusing scientific breakthroughs. Holocaust is not Hiroshima.

 

On 11/24/2019 at 9:20 AM, Technous285 said:

It might start as an elective procedure right now, but the next nutter that thinks they're going to be the next Hitler WILL be all too ready to abuse this to run their own eugenics program, either to wipe out anyone with Autistic markers OR those without them if they want to wipe out "normies"/"Neurotypicals".

That's paranoid as fuck, pardon my French :P It's the social version of hypochondria.

 

On 11/24/2019 at 9:20 AM, Technous285 said:

The advancement to being able to detect the genetic factors that can lead to Autism can be easily adjusted to look for other "undesirable" things like myopia (short-sightedness), early-onset or youth blindness, congenial heart conditions, hereditary obesity... The ability to detect and know about such things before a child's birth can lead to being able to prepare the parents for an easier life knowing what needs to be accounted for in their child's life, OR will be used to make Designer Babies without any of the "flaws" of Human evolution (aka: fucking EUGENICS).

That's for the parents to decide, as far as I'm concerned. (Nothing to do with "forced abortions", though, which aren't a thing for any condition we already can detect).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

 

That's for the parents to decide, as far as I'm concerned. (Nothing to do with "forced abortions", though, which aren't a thing for any condition we already can detect).

 

 

In Iceland there is already what can be described as a form of genocide going on. They have all but eradicated Down syndrome in the country by testing most expectant mothers early on and ‘offering’ them an abortion. While this may sound like a choice for the parents, there is a great deal of heavy handed genetic counselling going on as well as a certain amount of shaming. Iceland are also looking at other genetic so called abnormalities with aims to eradicate those too. Right or wrong, it is certainly a policy that gets you thinking about how far these kinds of ethics can be taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

In Iceland there is already what can be described as a form of genocide going on. They have all but eradicated Down syndrome in the country by testing most expectant mothers early on and ‘offering’ them an abortion.

I didn't say there isn't selective abortion, in fact I pointed out how that's up to the parents in my view. I did say there is no forced abortion that I'm aware of, and Iceland is no exception in that regard.

I also think that no, it cannot be described as a form of genocide. But that would take us along a path 50% semantics, 100% off topic ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

In Iceland there is already what can be described as a form of genocide going on. They have all but eradicated Down syndrome in the country by testing most expectant mothers early on and ‘offering’ them an abortion. While this may sound like a choice for the parents, there is a great deal of heavy handed genetic counseling going on as well as a certain amount of shaming. Iceland are also looking at other genetic so called abnormalities with aims to eradicate those too. Right or wrong, it is certainly a policy that gets you thinking about how far these kinds of ethics can be taken.

(Emphasis in quote added by me)

 

THIS. THIS is the type of shit I was talking about in how something "useful" like genetic testing for Autism can be weaponised to remove from existence children with traits some people in a group would consider as "undesirable".

Additionally the forced molding of people by that society into terminations by shaming and other forms of social parahaisms is the icing on the cake as to why I am against such testing, particularly going beyond the privacy between a physician and the patient, by being made known to the government and the society under control of that government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It depends on where on the spectrum you lie, but yes, a lot of autistic people do end up dramatically worsening the lives of other people. For example I would argue that unemployed people living off benefits make society worse as a whole.

85% of college graduates diagnosed with autism are unemployed because of a lack of social competence as well as inability to cope with other aspects of jobs (like changes).

 

Treating these people to the point where they can function at a work place should not be a though sell. These people are unable to contribute to society because of their disabilities, and yet somehow that should just be accepted because "that's who they are"?

 

Want me to take up more ways autism negatively impacts other people? Parents of autistic people report dramatically lower life and marriage satisfactions than parents of non-autistic children.

Autistic children report being involved in way more fights than non-autistic children as well. Are we going to excuse violent behavior just because "that's just how they are"? No thanks, not IF we can prevent it (massive if).

 

 

Personally, I would be okay with forced treatment of the ones heavily affected by it. If your disability makes you violent, unable to contribute to society and heavily negatively affect the life quality of your family then no, you shouldn't have a choice in being treated or not.*

 

*This obviously assumes that we had a magic pill that cured everything without dramatic side effects (and no, I don't think "removing part of their personality is a valid side effect). I am not saying we should blanket force all autistic people to do this experimental stuff.

 

You don't seem to understand autism or its implications.  You may as well be arguing that the heads on a coin are devaluing it and the coin should have two tails for all the important bits you've missed.

 

Much of the research into autism points to a bleak world lacking in a lot of technology with a lot slower development.  Maybe even obliterated with on going wars if not for the autistics who cracked codes during the war.  what about the autistics who put man on the moon, don't forget the much higher rate of autistic ands autistic traits present in science and engineering.  Wipe out autism and you stand to wipe out the key driving force of advancement.

 

It is naive (and dangerous) to concentrate only on the negative side of such a large and complex condition and the role it plays in society.

 

In order to determine they are a burden on society you are going to have to prove that autism has a net negative impact on society, not just point at the unemployment figures of diagnosed autistics.  Good luck with that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2019 at 4:52 PM, mr moose said:

We know enough about ASD to know the markers, there are plenty of biological conditions that coexist pointing to not just a correlation but in sufficient uniqueness to get a much higher accuracy in diagnosis.  We know an awful lot about the effects it has on personality both direct and through experience, so we know without doubt that by removing the condition (if it were even possible) would result in a momentous shift in personality.  In which direction it would shift is unknown, but that the shift would occur is very well known.

 

 

Damnit now you've piqued my scientific curiosity.

 

Again, I want to be up front that I do not think treatment should be forced on anyone, (the only exception being the unborn, and that decision being made by ONLY the parents of the unborn[unless they disagree]. Not in an "abort the disable" sense, because that's a bit too hitler-ish, but if the genes can be edited to prevent a lifelong condition, then it seems reasonable to allow the parents to choose to make that edit. I know I would for my own child I had one or was about to have one.

 

[Although I CAN see a legal argument arising where one parent wants to treat and the other does not, at that point I think the state SHOULD step in an force treatment because in my mind a normally functioning adult has a higher chance of being beneficial to society than a not normally functioning adult. I have no numbers to back that up, and anyone is welcome to provide counter evidence.]

 

But damnit, don't you want to know what direction that personality shift would take? What possible things would such findings unlock about the human psyche?

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Maybe, but like I said it affects around 85% of college graduates with autism. The remaining 15% might be fine though.

 

No that's not what I want.

Did you miss the two very big disclaimers I made in my post? Here they are again since you missed both of them the first time:

 

It's not even close. Do you honestly think treating autism is the same as gasing someone to death for their religious beliefs? Like, seriously?

 

No, not at all. I gave multiple reasons including autistic people ending up in more fights and the life quality of their parents/partners being significantly worse in general. I highlighted the part about autistic people often having very big difficulties finding and maintaining jobs because it is a clear example of how the majority of autistic people make society worse, by leeching from it rather than contributing. It seemed to me like you wanted examples of how someone having autism could make the lives of other people worse, so I gave it to you.

They make the lives of their close ones more difficult, resulting in lower life quality of the ones around them.

They are more violent in general and end up physically attacking more money than the norm.

They cost society money which could be spent on other things, such as health care for other sick patience. Saying that you do not want to be used and would rather stay a burden is essentially telling a cancer patience "you do not deserve better treatment because I do not want to change my personality".

 

Ok want to give a larger reply to some aspects of this.

 

One of the biggest issues i'd take it your entire post is the very clear enormous generalisations going on.ASD has a list of symptoms longer than your arm. But any given individual will posses only some of those symptoms and the degree of severity for each symptom they do possess as well as exactly which ones is so variable that generalisations whilst acceptable when talking about it in general are nearly usless because which of the many generalisations and the degree of severity that are applicable to each individual case is enormously variable. This means you pretty much have to take every individual on a case by case basis.

 

I'm also not sure incidentally where you get the more violent from? Whilst it;s true that can be the case with some forms of ASD it's actually overwhelmingly the case that the reverse is true. In fact checking for such violent tendencies is one of the checks the NHS does during diagnosis to see if there are possibble other root causes that aren't ASD for the symptoms as many non-ASD factors can mimic a number of the effects of ASD but have very different causes.Excessive violent tendencies are actually something of a warning flag there, (though again exceptions exist, primarily as a stress reaction when overwhelmed by events). Now being victims of more violence from others due to discrimination, yeah that happens a lot unfortunately, but there's an enormous difference between being victims of violence and being perpetrators of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very general statement about non voluntary autism treatment:

One of the things that made the National socialist party such a force in 1930’s germany is that it’s not exclusively a right wing concept.  Sure 90% of it is hardcore right, but there’s this 10% sliver that is very left wing.  It’s just that there’s practically nothing in the middle. This is why the statement of “I’m not right wing or left wing” scares me so much.  What they often mean is they’re both. Which is what the nazis were.

It IS possible to approach facism from the left.  It’s harder to do and the path is much narrower, but it’s not impossible.

 

there was a “slippery slope” mentioned earlier.  This is that slope.  

Not a pro, not even very good.  I’m just old and have time currently.  Assuming I know a lot about computers can be a mistake.

 

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, I think if 2% of autistic people could elect to be "cured", they should be allowed to have that available to them. I don't care if they only have 100% of the "good" parts and none of the "bad" parts, if they want to remove that from themselves, that should be in their power to do so. It sounds like the bigger issue is the lack of information people have as to not only autism, but the whole gamut of mental health conditions. Which is a whole 'nother other issue, since we still have loons trying to "pray away the gay".

 

As for who gets to choose: the affected individual. Not the parents, not the government.

 

As for 'identity': I think some people mix up accepting a part of themselves and being a part of their identity. Just because you accept something about yourself, doesn't mean it is a part of your identity.

Spoiler

CPU: Intel i7 6850K

GPU: nVidia GTX 1080Ti (ZoTaC AMP! Extreme)

Motherboard: Gigabyte X99-UltraGaming

RAM: 16GB (2x 8GB) 3000Mhz EVGA SuperSC DDR4

Case: RaidMax Delta I

PSU: ThermalTake DPS-G 750W 80+ Gold

Monitor: Samsung 32" UJ590 UHD

Keyboard: Corsair K70

Mouse: Corsair Scimitar

Audio: Logitech Z200 (desktop); Roland RH-300 (headphones)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Damnit now you've piqued my scientific curiosity.

 

Again, I want to be up front that I do not think treatment should be forced on anyone, (the only exception being the unborn, and that decision being made by ONLY the parents of the unborn[unless they disagree]. Not in an "abort the disable" sense, because that's a bit too hitler-ish, but if the genes can be edited to prevent a lifelong condition, then it seems reasonable to allow the parents to choose to make that edit. I know I would for my own child I had one or was about to have one.

 

[Although I CAN see a legal argument arising where one parent wants to treat and the other does not, at that point I think the state SHOULD step in an force treatment because in my mind a normally functioning adult has a higher chance of being beneficial to society than a not normally functioning adult. I have no numbers to back that up, and anyone is welcome to provide counter evidence.]

 

But damnit, don't you want to know what direction that personality shift would take? What possible things would such findings unlock about the human psyche?

 

Until we have another 2 decades of proper diagnosis going into adulthood,  anything we do now will be based on half measures and incomplete data.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

I dunno, I think if 2% of autistic people could elect to be "cured", they should be allowed to have that available to them. I don't care if they only have 100% of the "good" parts and none of the "bad" parts, if they want to remove that from themselves, that should be in their power to do so. It sounds like the bigger issue is the lack of information people have as to not only autism, but the whole gamut of mental health conditions. Which is a whole 'nother other issue, since we still have loons trying to "pray away the gay".

 

As for who gets to choose: the affected individual. Not the parents, not the government.

I agree with that.

 

5 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

As for 'identity': I think some people mix up accepting a part of themselves and being a part of their identity. Just because you accept something about yourself, doesn't mean it is a part of your identity.

That is not true for autism.  The problem is the condition has a major effect on personality development,  It is an intrinsic part of personality, there is absolutely no way to claim otherwise .

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That is not true for autism.  The problem is the condition has a major effect on personality development,  It is an intrinsic part of personality, there is absolutely no way to claim otherwise .

Right, I understand that. But personality (and identity) can change, even in people on the spectrum. I guess I should have clarified that personality and identity don't have to remain 'locked in' for the duration of one's life. I was more leaning to the idea that people have "rebuilt" themselves for whatever reason, and its okay to make that change at any point in one's life if they want.

Spoiler

CPU: Intel i7 6850K

GPU: nVidia GTX 1080Ti (ZoTaC AMP! Extreme)

Motherboard: Gigabyte X99-UltraGaming

RAM: 16GB (2x 8GB) 3000Mhz EVGA SuperSC DDR4

Case: RaidMax Delta I

PSU: ThermalTake DPS-G 750W 80+ Gold

Monitor: Samsung 32" UJ590 UHD

Keyboard: Corsair K70

Mouse: Corsair Scimitar

Audio: Logitech Z200 (desktop); Roland RH-300 (headphones)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, The1Dickens said:

Right, I understand that. But personality (and identity) can change, even in people on the spectrum. I guess I should have clarified that personality and identity don't have to remain 'locked in' for the duration of one's life. I was more leaning to the idea that people have "rebuilt" themselves for whatever reason, and its okay to make that change at any point in one's life if they want.

I am not sure you understand the degree to which this applies.   Sure we can say personalities can change,  but they change either from exposure to an extreme situation (war, horrific death/accident or victim of horrific crime) or they change over the course of decades little bit by little bit.     What people are missing here is that ASD plays an incredibly huge role in personality development,  that personality will not just change if you remove the ASD, the fact is removing the ASD doesn't guarantee anything not even preemptively (even though it isn't possible).

 

People learning to change their personality at this level (for whatever reason) usually require decades of therapy/help. 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I am not sure you understand the degree to which this applies.

Fair enough.

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What people are missing here is that ASD plays an incredibly huge role in personality development,  that personality will not just change if you remove the ASD, the fact is removing the ASD doesn't guarantee anything not even preemptively (even though it isn't possible).

 

People learning to change their personality at this level (for whatever reason) usually require decades of therapy/help. 

But I still feel that it should be up to the individual if they want to go down that path.

Spoiler

CPU: Intel i7 6850K

GPU: nVidia GTX 1080Ti (ZoTaC AMP! Extreme)

Motherboard: Gigabyte X99-UltraGaming

RAM: 16GB (2x 8GB) 3000Mhz EVGA SuperSC DDR4

Case: RaidMax Delta I

PSU: ThermalTake DPS-G 750W 80+ Gold

Monitor: Samsung 32" UJ590 UHD

Keyboard: Corsair K70

Mouse: Corsair Scimitar

Audio: Logitech Z200 (desktop); Roland RH-300 (headphones)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

 

But I still feel that it should be up to the individual if they want to go down that path.

I have no problem with this.   The only problem I have is people who don't seem to understand the size and complexity of ASD but are still confident enough to tell us about our personality and how it formed and whether or not we are disabled.   

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

Fair enough.

But I still feel that it should be up to the individual if they want to go down that path.

This is the crux of the issue.  WILL it be up to the individual?  I mean really actually up to them? Or will it be a situation where they are punished for not doing so?

 

An example of sorts:  Old men have  to pee their pants now.  The issue is prostate treatment.  As a male ages his prostate gets larger, and since the urethra runs through it it can be severely constructed.  Thus old men develop weird bladder problems.  It used to be that there was a very effective surgery, which was basically a little tiny bladed pipe auger, (shades of hell raiser I know) they would run up your junk and basically make a new urethra of sorts.  It was painful, a bit dangerous, you peed blood for a good while, but it worked.  Thing was it was expensive because surgery.  So a drug was invented.  It instead shrinks the prostate.  It’s got huge problems and you get to take it forever.  it’s much more unpleasant than the surgery, and it’s only just barely cheaper.    Insurance companies love it though because men are so scared of it they’d rather walk around with wet underwear and wake up every two hours than take it, so as long as an insurance company makes taking the drug and having it fail a requirement for getting the surgery they don’t have to pay for surgeries anymore.  By instituting the requirement of a punishment drug they save themselves money.  Old men smell like piss and they can’t get any sleep, but hey, better balance sheet.

Not a pro, not even very good.  I’m just old and have time currently.  Assuming I know a lot about computers can be a mistake.

 

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

This is the crux of the issue.  WILL it be up to the individual?  I mean really actually up to them? Or will it be a situation where they are punished for not doing so?

By that logic, does anyone do anything of their own volition? Or are we forced to do things by threat (or implementation) of punishment?

 

12 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

An example of sorts:

That's not at all similar, though, and a wholly separate issue of corruption and manipulation in the medical insurance industry. You could thus argue why bother making any advances when the next Shekles (or whatever that person's name is) is just going to buy it up, and raise the price some 5000% for no reason, and make it effectively inaccessible, and anyone unable to afford it is in the same boat as before it was a thing.

 

This seems like an extreme situation, though. What I expect to happen is we get a better understanding of what ASD is, and because it's Musk paying for the work, more people will have that information put in front of them.

Spoiler

CPU: Intel i7 6850K

GPU: nVidia GTX 1080Ti (ZoTaC AMP! Extreme)

Motherboard: Gigabyte X99-UltraGaming

RAM: 16GB (2x 8GB) 3000Mhz EVGA SuperSC DDR4

Case: RaidMax Delta I

PSU: ThermalTake DPS-G 750W 80+ Gold

Monitor: Samsung 32" UJ590 UHD

Keyboard: Corsair K70

Mouse: Corsair Scimitar

Audio: Logitech Z200 (desktop); Roland RH-300 (headphones)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

By that logic, does anyone do anything of their own volition? Or are we forced to do things by threat (or implementation) of punishment?

Those aren’t opposites.  That’s two phrases of identical meaning.

“do we do things of our own volition? Or are our actions forced by threat of punishment?”

 

there is acceptance of risk, there is delay of gratification, there is moral stance.  These differ per individual.  Some choices are harder than others.  
there’s this interesting word: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

there are levels of it though.

17 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

That's not at all similar, though, and a wholly separate issue of corruption and manipulation in the medical insurance industry. You could thus argue why bother making any advances when the next Shekles (or whatever that person's name is) is just going to buy it up, and raise the price some 5000% for no reason, and make it effectively inaccessible, and anyone unable to afford it is in the same boat as before it was a thing.

 

This seems like an extreme situation, though. What I expect to happen is we get a better understanding of what ASD is, and because it's Musk paying for the work, more people will have that information put in front of them.

True it’s only somewhat similar which is why I said “of sorts”.  I happened to have it on hand though, and you can see the similarity.  Is it coercion? Hard to say.  The effect is the same.  It’s legal.  It was intended as an illustration of the fact that there are levels of coercion, and they can be hidden.  Something that looks voluntary may not be so.  That 5000% thing is happening too btw.  A lot of diabetics have been dying lately.  There are certain things the free market sucks at.  Life safety services is one of them.

 

I agree that the case is extreme.  I’m not even saying the research should not take place. I’d like to see it done.  I’m just saying that musk has a Bethesda style pre release issue which works better for some things than others.  He’s not my first choice for medical ethicist.  I’m not saying stop him.  I’m saying watch him.


There is a third problem: autistic people sometimes make gigantic societal contributions.  Einstein, Archimedes, Newton, Turing... there are a lot of them.  Should they have been cured?  They would have been more fun at parties and probably gotten laid more, but basically everything in modern society exists because of those men.

 

This is something that IMHO should be treated with great caution.

 

Truely voluntary is critical. And it’s surprisingly difficult to arrange for. So much so some people are saying it simply cannot be done. Profoundness of impairment must be weighed heavily.  Development of personality is a major factor.

Not a pro, not even very good.  I’m just old and have time currently.  Assuming I know a lot about computers can be a mistake.

 

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:


There is a third problem: autistic people sometimes make gigantic societal contributions.  Einstein, Archimedes, Newton, Turing... there are a lot of them.  Should they have been cured?  They would have been more fun at parties and probably gotten laid more, but basically everything in modern society exists because of those men.

 

 

This is something I really struggle to highlight to people.  I have just finished reading this article (link below) on autistic history.  Many people just don't want to accept it, but it is highly likely that without autism we might still be entering the early stages of the industrial revolution.    Great engineers like Stevenson, Richard Trevithic, Isambard Kingdom Brunel et al, were undoubtedly on the spectrum.  You only have to look at reports of the type of people they were and what people thought of them to know they had the traits.

 

 

http://theconversation.com/how-our-autistic-ancestors-played-an-important-role-in-human-evolution-73477

 

 

And this piece that outlines who they think was and why:

 

https://www.appliedbehavioranalysisprograms.com/historys-30-most-inspiring-people-on-the-autism-spectrum/

 

 

Even if they are half wrong, there is no way we can deny that autism has shaped our society for the better in many uncountable ways.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: why it isn’t what you want:

Those may have been in other different posts.  I believe I quoted what you wrote in the post I reacted to.

Not sure what section you're responding to but if it was the part about you not reading my post fully and missing a lot of "assuming" and "if" then no, those were in the post you were quoting. You can click ctrl+f in your browser to get a search function. Just search for my quotes and you will see they are inside your response.

There are not from different posts.

 

 

15 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

re: gassing.  

I’m talking about what happened.  Religious beliefs weren’t the only reason.  The nazis also interned disabled people for more or less the reasons you outlined.  At least at first. The belief that such would be done was downplayed because of war injuries.  It did still happen some.  My point still stands.

So you think gassing someone and curing a medical condition are the same thing? Again, is that what you are actually saying?

 

 

15 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

re: money. 
you did say why you felt it was justified.  It wasn’t the reason you gave for actually acting though.  That reason was “drain on society” and cost.  A not inaccurate translation of the nazi reasoning actually.  You then state autistic people are violent, and then go back to the money thing.  The way I am reading your rebuttal is it is actually an agreement.

I am not sure if I am not being clear in what I mean or if you are doing a strawman argument, or lack some reading comprehension skills.

Your argument was that unlike other conditions, autism do not negatively affect the lives of other people. My counter argument to that was, yes it does.

Here are some ways autism affect other people, in no particular order:

1) The vast majority of autistic people are unable to get and hold a job. This means that they are not contributing to society like a normal, functioning adult. Money has to be allocated to supporting these people rather than other people. Every dollar spent in one place is one not spent on something else.

2) The vast majority of parents of autistic children report a dramatically lower life satisfaction and marriage satisfaction. Being a parent is hard as it is, but with an autistic child it becomes even more difficult and hard work. Mothers of autistic children also suffers from depression and anxiety far more often than mothers of non-autistic children.

3) Autistic people have a much higher tendency to get into violent fights than non-autistic people. You said that this was me saying "autistic people are violent" and to some degree, that is true, statistically. If we're going to draw hard conclusions then more autistic people = more violence, which is something I think we all agree we should strive to reduce.

 

Bonus) People with autism report lower levels of life satisfaction than the norm. On top of just not being as satisfied with their lives, autistic people also have in general lower self-esteem and reports far more negative life events.

 

 

So there you have 3 (three) reasons why autism negatively effect other people, plus a bonus one people with autism might not know about.

 

 

16 hours ago, CarlBar said:

About to head off for a nap but i assume you'd be ok with the same techniques being applied then to deal with people who are racist or sexist, or have other personality factors that are negatively detrimental to society in most situations.

If it could be statistically shown that, like with autism, it would reduce violence, free up money for everyone, and improve the lives of people around them then sure, do it for the ones most heavily affected by it (or have other positive aspects).

Assuming we had a magical pill that removed it without any negative side-effects, of course. I am not saying that we should force experimental stuff on people (this is like the 5th time I am repeating that line in this thread).

 

 

15 hours ago, Phill104 said:

Autism is part of a person, it makes up in part who they are.

Yes, and schizophrenia is also part of who a person is.

Alcoholism is also part of who a person is.

Etc... etc...

 

15 hours ago, Phill104 said:

You cannot suddenly take that away without massively changing them.

We don't know that, but even if that was true who says the change wouldn't be for the better?

Removing the racism from a racist person and they will change too, but probably for the better, right?

Change is not inherently bad. Also, if we had this magical pill we might have applied it to children only. Then we wouldn't change any person who already had grown up and gotten a personality. Would that be more acceptable?

 

 

15 hours ago, Phill104 said:

Alcoholism is an addiction, and while it is a mental illness it is nothing in any way like ASD.

Bipolar is a chemical imbalance, again something very different to ASD.

They are the same in that all three are classified as mental disorders.

All three are the same in that they are major parts of the affected peoples' lives and dictate how they are as a person.

All three are the same in that they have negative impacts on society.

 

 

15 hours ago, Phill104 said:

Autism is a spectrum of things and while some may need a lot of looking after, others can and do live a normal and occasionally exceptional life.

Yes but then how about only doing it to those who suffer greatly enough to not be able to be a functional member of society (which apparently is over 80% of them)?

Or how about doing it to all newborns so that they grow up healthy without any issues (other than those we can't cure, yet)?

 

 

15 hours ago, Phill104 said:

It is not something that should be taken away just because it makes others feel uncomfortable. I for one would not want any treatment. 

Well it's not just "because it makes other feel uncomfortable", as I have explained several times now.

But why would you not want the treatment if there was some hypothetical magic pill? Because you don't like change?

 

What I am about will sound condescending but, people with autism are behind when it comes to their mental age and reasoning skills. To me, asking an autistic people if they want to be cured is kind of like asking a child if they want to go to school. Of course they will say no, because they don't understand why it's important. I mean, not being able to understand other people is also part of being autism so I don't even think you can explain why and how autism affects other people to someone with autism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Phill104 said:

In Iceland there is already what can be described as a form of genocide going on. They have all but eradicated Down syndrome in the country by testing most expectant mothers early on and ‘offering’ them an abortion.

I think that's a good thing that should be celebrated.

Hooray! Fewer people suffering in the world!

I don't see eradicating down syndrome as any different from let's say eradicating Alzheimer or ALS. Would you be sad and describe it as a genocide if we discovered a cure for ALS too?

 

14 hours ago, Phill104 said:

Iceland are also looking at other genetic so called abnormalities with aims to eradicate those too.

No need to add "so called". Downs syndrome is an abnormality, and it's not a good one.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

You don't seem to understand autism or its implications.  You may as well be arguing that the heads on a coin are devaluing it and the coin should have two tails for all the important bits you've missed.

No, I do understand it. That's why I am able to cite research for it such as unemployment rates and life satisfaction scores. It's just I am looking at it from an objective point of view rather than a "I am scared of change so therefore I am against it" angle.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

Much of the research into autism points to a bleak world lacking in a lot of technology with a lot slower development.  Maybe even obliterated with on going wars if not for the autistics who cracked codes during the war.  what about the autistics who put man on the moon, don't forget the much higher rate of autistic ands autistic traits present in science and engineering.  Wipe out autism and you stand to wipe out the key driving force of advancement.

Not all advancements in science and engineering have been done by autistic people.

Autism is not a driving force of advancement in technology. Money, survival instinct and the thirst for exploration (which is part of all humans not just autistic people) are the driving forces.

But even then, you're talking about a very minor part of the autistic population. If 85% is a burden and 15% are doing well, then you might still end up with a net positive thing by changing all of them.

You have to look at the larger picture and not just a handful of examples which should somehow carry everyone else on their shoulders.

 

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

It is naive (and dangerous) to concentrate only on the negative side of such a large and complex condition and the role it plays in society.

I also think it's naive and dangerous to ignore all the negative side of things. How about we weight the positive and negative aspects against each other to try and gauge which weights the heaviest? That's what I am trying to do.

 

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

In order to determine they are a burden on society you are going to have to prove that autism has a net negative impact on society, not just point at the unemployment figures of diagnosed autistics.  Good luck with that.

Why can't I use unemployment figures to prove that autistic people are a burden to society? Because you said so? Because its very strong evidence that I am right?

You can't just ignore evidence you don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×