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

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

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.

 

 

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

 

You keep harping on about this, there is no evidence to suggest autistic's are more violent, in fact the exact opposite is more likely true where they are the victims.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27185105

https://www.mdedge.com/psychiatry/article/77690/neurology/violent-behavior-autism-spectrum-disorder-it-fact-or-fiction

https://www.spectrumnews.org/opinion/guest-blog-understanding-aggression-in-autism/

https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20121218/aspergers-violence#1

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170531193211.htm

 

I could go on but it seems you aren't interested in the facts, just pedaling the same bullshit you don;t understand.  If it seems I am getting aggressive about this it is because you are saying some very foolish things that cannot be supported with evidence.

 

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

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)?

Like I said before,  the 80% statistic is only for adults of today who were only diagnosed because they were severe enough to get a diagnosis back when they were children, There are a lot more autistic adults out there that are undiagnosed, so that figure largely means nothing.   And that is before you even consider the large and over represented positives that autism has had on society.

 

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

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.

 

No, it doesn't sound condescending,  it sounds uneducated, moronic, fucking stupid,. a spiel of the least intelligent drivel anyone has ever posted on this forum.   I just can't believe you actually wrote that let alone believe it,  you must be trolling with such vitriolic drivel.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

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.

You can cite the rates, but you can't qualify why they are that high.  You have to remember that there are a lot more autistic people undiagnosed and therefore not included in those figures.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

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

Never said they all were, I just said the a lot are and a lot of the major ones were.   You are going to have to argue with a lot of significantly more qualified people than me if you wish to have anyone believe otherwise.

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

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.

Tell yourself whatever you need to believe.   II have explained that already.

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

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.

No one is ignoring the negatives, we just aren't stupid enough to blanket every one with ASD as a moron who is a burden on society. 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

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.

See my above post.  

[mr moose]

@LAwLz

 

Just because you love to cite the evidence,  here's a study for you showing you that people with ASD have the same level of insight as TD people:

 

Quote

Despite a widespread and longstanding assumption that they do not, we found individuals with ASD showed significant levels of understanding into their personality across different operationalizations of self-insight. Using a trait-centered approach, ASD individuals showed significant self-other agreement for four of the Big Five dimensions. Although these correlations were far from perfect, the level of agreement was similar to that in the TD individuals.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4122539/

 

For those wanting a laymens TL:DR:

 

Research has showed people with ASD lacked self insight and cognitive function,  but what they really lacked was the ability to communicate said traits in those studies, further studies show there is little to no difference.  Except where people with ASD are more open to new data even if they don't like trying new things or change.

 

EDIT: another quote from the article just to hammer home the point:

 

Quote

Using a person-centered approach, ASD and TD individuals showed similar distinctive agreement, that is, agreement on their unique profile of defining traits. These findings suggest that individuals with ASD have a reasonable degree of insight into their own personalities. They recognize, at least to some extent, that they tend to be socially withdrawn and inhibited; less soft-hearted, empathic, and warm; less organized and responsible; and less emotionally stable, with more frequent and intense bouts of anxiety and sadness, than TD individuals. They also recognize, at least to some extent, the differential extent to which these qualities define them.

 

[LAwLz]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You keep harping on about this, there is no evidence to suggest autistic's are more violent, in fact the exact opposite is more likely true where they are the victims.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27185105

https://www.mdedge.com/psychiatry/article/77690/neurology/violent-behavior-autism-spectrum-disorder-it-fact-or-fiction

https://www.spectrumnews.org/opinion/guest-blog-understanding-aggression-in-autism/

https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20121218/aspergers-violence#1

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170531193211.htm

 

I could go on but it seems you aren't interested in the facts, just pedaling the same bullshit you don;t understand.  If it seems I am getting aggressive about this it is because you are saying some very foolish things that cannot be supported with evidence.

What I said is true though. Autistic people are involved in more violence. Even the studies you yourself linked indicates that, although they are talking about it in different ways. For example they say the cause for violence isn't autism but rather byproducts like troubled childhoods.

The way I look at it, if autism leads to a troubled childhood, and a troubled childhood leads to conflict, then autism is the cause of conflict in those cases. Isn't that a reasonable and logical way of looking at things?

A leads to be, which leads to C and therefore A leads to C.

 

Like the study on NIH says, the prevalence of ASD in mass shooters is around 8 times as high as the general population, and that's without counting the 21% of shootings where the perpetrator(s) had indications of ASD but were not properly diagnosed.

 

There is no doubt that autistic people are at a higher risk of being victims of violence too, but I have never said anything contrary to that.

What I said was that autism leads to more violence, be it perpetrators or victims. But shouldn't being the victims of violence be a reason why it would be good to remove the autism? That might be seen as victim blaming but if I as a parent had a choice between my kid having a higher or lower risk of being physically attacked then of course I would want the lower risk.

It might also be that they are the victims of physical violence but it might not be entirely unprovoked. Not picking up on social ques and saying the wrong thing at the wrong time can get you in trouble, and that risk is most likely larger with autistic people.

 

 

42 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Like I said before,  the 80% statistic is only for adults of today who were only diagnosed because they were severe enough to get a diagnosis back when they were children, There are a lot more autistic adults out there that are undiagnosed, so that figure largely means nothing.   And that is before you even consider the large and over represented positives that autism has had on society.

So how about treatment for those who only suffer from it greatly like the 85% statistic I am quoting?

 

 

43 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No, it doesn't sound condescending,  it sounds uneducated, moronic, fucking stupid,. a spiel of the least intelligent drivel anyone has ever posted on this forum.   I just can't believe you actually wrote that let alone believe it,  you must be trolling with such vitriolic drivel.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's how I look at it.

Autistic people have trouble seeing and imaging what things are like for another person. I think that hinders autistic peoples' ability to understand how their condition affects other people.

 

 

47 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You can cite the rates, but you can't qualify why they are that high.  You have to remember that there are a lot more autistic people undiagnosed and therefore not included in those figures.

Well by that logic we can't draw any conclusions.

I am going with the most accurate and up to date statistics we have. Shouldn't we always use that when drawing conclusions?

Like I suggested earlier, how about we only treat the ones who are suffering heavily from autism? For example the people included in the 85% in the statistics I've quoted.

 

49 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Never said they all were, I just said the a lot are and a lot of the major ones were.   You are going to have to argue with a lot of significantly more qualified people than me if you wish to have anyone believe otherwise.

O have no doubt in my mind that a lot of scientific breakthrough have been done by people with autism. But did they do those breakthrough because they were autistic? Would they have been able to do them without their autism? If those people hadn't discovered those things, would someone else have done it?

I feel like you're making a lot of assumptions and giving credit to autism when it might not be warranted. I guess I feel the same way about this as you feel about me saying autism causes violence.

 

 

53 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No one is ignoring the negatives, we just aren't stupid enough to blanket every one with ASD as a moron who is a burden on society. 

Neither am I. But the studies I have read and cited shows that a majority of them have difficulties and would probably be better off without autism. Since we don't have a cure yet we can only look at statistics and compare autistic people vs non-autistic people. For example autistic people in general report lower life satisfaction than non-autistic people. The conclusion I draw from that is that if we had a cure, autistic people could increase their life satisfaction. I see that as a good thing.

However, that might be a though sell to someone with autism since it means trading something known against something unknown.

"A bird in the hand" and all that.

[LAwLz]

48 minutes ago, mr moose said:

@LAwLz

 

Just because you love to cite the evidence,  here's a study for you showing you that people with ASD have the same level of insight as TD people:

 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4122539/

 

For those wanting a laymens TL:DR:

 

Research has showed people with ASD lacked self insight and cognitive function,  but what they really lacked was the ability to communicate said traits in those studies, further studies show there is little to no difference.  Except where people with ASD are more open to new data even if they don't like trying new things or change.

 

EDIT: another quote from the article just to hammer home the point:

Interesting

I'll look through the studies a bit more when I get some time to spare but it seems like I'll have to eat my own words about autistic people have difficulties understanding other people.

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.

 

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

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).

 

 

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

Alcoholism is also part of who a person is.

Etc... etc...

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

 

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)?

 

 

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.

1. Possible. My reading comprehension is not guaranteed 100% I’m not sure it’s relevant though considering the rest of the post here.

2. Case issues and exaggeration.  I specifically said that it wasn’t, though in this particular case it is Possibly very similar.  

 

3. Check your own reading comprehension skills.  That was not my argument.  You seem to still be defending with quasi-fascist theory though.

3.1 the job thing.  
a rewording of the “drain on society” argument.  There is a path to facism from the left as well as the right.  It’s much more narrow than the path from the right but it exists.

3.2 parents of children.  
children.  Children specifically don’t have the age and personality issues I discussed.  Still some 3.1 in there though.

3.3 violence.

Define “much higher”.  this point has been questioned here by people besides me. I’ve been involved in violent fights, but always as the one being beaten.  Being attacked is not the same as being the attacker.
3.bonus.  Yes.  It’s unpleasant.  Sometimes Clinically depressive even.  Being different is like that.  Lift people have the same problem historically. Also see 3.3

 

summation 

3 versions of one reason, emphasizing limited cases. with a bonus “they” definitely do know about.  

magical pill:

you say that like it excuses the rest of it.  You make a case for something you say with the word “magical” that you don’t even think will happen, then continue to make it.  Other people don’t think it will happen either.  That is the crux. In effect “given this impossible sub condition this is OK”. There is no impossible sub condition.  It’s impossible.  As a result it’s not OK.

 

mental disorders:

you need to look up the exact definition of that term in psychology.  You’re pretending it means “disease” it doesn’t.  It somewhat narrowly doesn’t, but the difference is crucial and you’re skipping over it.

 

Functional member of society:

You have a very tight definition of that.  Tighter even than the nazis had.  People who are not functional members of society are incredibly unhappy about it generally.  Perhaps even enough to voluntarily take your likely not possible “magical pill”  You wouldn’t need to force it on them like you seem to want to.  

 

Condescending: 

not so much condescending as dirt ignorant.  You’re interpreting one problem as another.  They may appear that way, but it’s not an age thing it’s an input thing.  The “child” thing is pretty condescending though.  Adults have been children.  They know why kids don’t want to go to school.  This is why I think even you don’t think your “magical pill” concept is actually relevant.  You argue for something other than what you claim you’re arguing for.

My own summation:

The basis of the argument you make is “we should be able to force this on people”. Force a thing that doesn’t and can’t exist.  You then go on to make arguments for a much more realistic  one based on the defense that you are arguing for something else.  The problem is that if you are arguing for something other than the “magical pill” absolutely exclusively, which is what you seem to actually be doing despite protests, you’re parroting facist theory.  It drops almost instantly from barely reasonable to horrendously awful the moment even a tiny bit of that “magic” is taken away.  Magic that doesn’t exist in the first place.

back to what is actually happening:

None of this changes my accusation about the final take away.  You want to coerce me to stick electrodes in my brain to wipe my personality on the grounds money and make your own life easier.  There is even a time in my life I would have done it without coercion.  That doesn’t seem to matter to you though. Like I said, it isn’t quite a gas chamber.  It’s just way too close.

 

There ARE reasons to do the research. Good ones.  The whole “magical pill” concept isn’t one of them though.  It’s an excuse to push horrible things.

[The1Dickens]

5 hours 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.

Yes, if they wanted it. I don't care what benefits anyone has made to society, we don't know if they would have wanted to have a different life. And it is up to them to make that choice. Nobody is obligated to improve the lives of anyone or everyone else. You seem to be under the assumption that I'm trying to eradicate the spectrum, or if a "cure" becomes available, that everyone should be forced to take it. I'm not. I'm saying that if a cure were to be discovered, someone should be allowed to make that choice, regardless how they might benefit the future. Nobody has any right to force that on to anyone.

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

Yes, if they wanted it. I don't care what benefits anyone has made to society, we don't know if they would have wanted to have a different life. And it is up to them to make that choice. Nobody is obligated to improve the lives of anyone or everyone else. You seem to be under the assumption that I'm trying to eradicate the spectrum, or if a "cure" becomes available, that everyone should be forced to take it. I'm not. I'm saying that if a cure were to be discovered, someone should be allowed to make that choice, regardless how they might benefit the future. Nobody has any right to force that on to anyone.

Has a right to? No.  But will they try anyway though is the question.

[spartaman64]

13 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

Yes, if they wanted it. I don't care what benefits anyone has made to society, we don't know if they would have wanted to have a different life. And it is up to them to make that choice. Nobody is obligated to improve the lives of anyone or everyone else. You seem to be under the assumption that I'm trying to eradicate the spectrum, or if a "cure" becomes available, that everyone should be forced to take it. I'm not. I'm saying that if a cure were to be discovered, someone should be allowed to make that choice, regardless how they might benefit the future. Nobody has any right to force that on to anyone.

but do they want it because they actually want it or is it because thats what society expects of them? i dont think any of those people in retrospect would give up their magnum opus for a better social life. but if they were approached by it when they are younger without knowledge of what they can achieve without it or pressured by their parents/society to take it then that might be a different story.

[The1Dickens]

5 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

but do they want it because they actually want it or is it because thats what society expects of them?

This is an unfair argument to make, because it blurs the lines on so many things. It's mixing what is the past, with what is hypothetically the past. Assuming they'd have the same understanding that they did, but giving them a cure for something that they didn't even know about is borderline paradoxical.

 

10 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i dont think any of those people in retrospect would give up their magnum opus for a better social life.

You'd assume so based on the current course of history, but we don't know since we can't ask them.

 

13 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

but if they were approached by it when they are younger without knowledge of what they can achieve without it or pressured by their parents/society to take it then that might be a different story.

Pressure from parents/society is going to be a problem for literally everything, and it doesn't stop plenty from being great, or being horrible. Some parents are terrible, and some people will suffer for it, but that is the current situation for so many things already. I still maintain that having more information available will allow someone to make an informed decision for themselves.

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

but do they want it because they actually want it or is it because thats what society expects of them? i dont think any of those people in retrospect would give up their magnum opus for a better social life. but if they were approached by it when they are younger without knowledge of what they can achieve without it or pressured by their parents/society to take it then that might be a different story.

But that goes back to this:

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

O have no doubt in my mind that a lot of scientific breakthrough have been done by people with autism. But did they do those breakthrough because they were autistic? Would they have been able to do them without their autism? If those people hadn't discovered those things, would someone else have done it?

I feel like you're making a lot of assumptions and giving credit to autism when it might not be warranted. I guess I feel the same way about this as you feel about me saying autism causes violence.

And on top of that, is it a net positive or a net negative thing to society? If 99 people with alcoholism have a negative effect on society and 1 has a positive effect, does that mean everything is fine and dandy, and we shouldn't do anything about the other 99?

How many autistic people become great investors vs how many end up contributing next to nothing?

 

 

It's hard to not sound like a fascist but seriously... All the evidence points towards the fact that autistic people would have better lives if they didn't have autism. It would benefit everyone. Their parents would have a better life, they themselves would have a better life, society would have more money to spend on other stuff, there would be less violence, and so on.

And I am not sure it would be a good idea to leave things up to the parents to decide if their newborn child would get cursed of autism or not. Just look at how many parents fuck up such a simple decision as "should I vaccinate my child or not". A lot of people don't seem to want their children to be healthy.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

But that goes back to this:

And on top of that, is it a net positive or a net negative thing to society? If 99 people with alcoholism have a negative effect on society and 1 has a positive effect, does that mean everything is fine and dandy, and we shouldn't do anything about the other 99?

How many autistic people become great investors vs how many end up contributing next to nothing?

 

 

It's hard to not sound like a fascist but seriously... All the evidence points towards the fact that autistic people would have better lives if they didn't have autism. It would benefit everyone. Their parents would have a better life, they themselves would have a better life, society would have more money to spend on other stuff, there would be less violence, and so on.

And I am not sure it would be a good idea to leave things up to the parents to decide if their newborn child would get cursed of autism or not. Just look at how many parents fuck up such a simple decision as "should I vaccinate my child or not". A lot of people don't seem to want their children to be healthy.

Ah, the “but”.  Also the The unsupported violence thing again.  The same could be true of basically all minorities.  People would have better lives if they were straight, people would have better lives if they were white, people would have better lives if they spoke English.  It’s all the same thing.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But that goes back to this:

And on top of that, is it a net positive or a net negative thing to society? If 99 people with alcoholism have a negative effect on society and 1 has a positive effect, does that mean everything is fine and dandy, and we shouldn't do anything about the other 99?

How many autistic people become great investors vs how many end up contributing next to nothing?

 

 

It's hard to not sound like a fascist but seriously... All the evidence points towards the fact that autistic people would have better lives if they didn't have autism. It would benefit everyone. Their parents would have a better life, they themselves would have a better life, society would have more money to spend on other stuff, there would be less violence, and so on.

And I am not sure it would be a good idea to leave things up to the parents to decide if their newborn child would get cursed of autism or not. Just look at how many parents fuck up such a simple decision as "should I vaccinate my child or not". A lot of people don't seem to want their children to be healthy.

I find many of your comments insulting. Evolution cares not for society, employment value or any other construct of modern life. What evolution does is take differences in genetics and takes the strengths from every line to build a stronger life form. Genetic mutations are what drives evolution, or causes a line to die out. We need to embrace those mutations, especially as we as a race are a very long way from understanding the mechanism behind it. The more our arrogance tries to intervene just because it give some people a warm fuzzy feeling that they are making everyone the same the greater the risk to life as we know it. Attempting to wipe out what some consider are genetic faults can lead down only one path, extinction. Strange that so many powers have attempted to do just that, and still do. I wonder what the world would be like had one dictator succeeded in creating a master race.

[Sauron]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

You keep harping on about this, there is no evidence to suggest autistic's are more violent, in fact the exact opposite is more likely true where they are the victims.

In fact, having met a few people with heavy forms of autism, the idea that they could be violent at all sounds completely absurd to me. Some of them are barely aware of their surroundings, all of them have a strong dislike for physical contact with strangers. If there is a statistic pointing towards them being more involved in violence then I would assume it's either cases where they are attacked, as you suggested, or where they don't realize what they're doing.

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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?

Euthanasia at birth isn't a "cure" for anything. While we're at it, why don't we get rid of people who are genetically predisposed to be too short, too fat, too thin, too whatever according to some subjective and arrogant idea of what lives are worth living? What makes you think you'd make the cut? If we could "cure" people like you from thinking like this through brainwashing and a thorough change of your personality, or just prevent them from being born, would you be ok with it? I would argue this way of thinking causes more harm and suffering than autism or Down syndrome ever has. Need I remind you of which prominent historical figure thought disabled people were a burden on society and that we'd be better off without them?

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Ah, the “but”.  Also the The unsupported violence thing again.  The same could be true of basically all minorities.  People would have better lives if they were straight, people would have better lives if they were white, people would have better lives if they spoke English.  It’s all the same thing.

The violence thing is not unsupported.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27185105

School shooting perpetrators are over-represented in school shooting cases. 8% of school shooters have ASD, and another ~20% have shown signs but had not been diagnosed. So as much as ~30% of school shooters may have autism, compared to ~1% for the general population.

 

 

 

 

 

Other articles mr moose linked such as these:

https://www.mdedge.com/psychiatry/article/77690/neurology/violent-behavior-autism-spectrum-disorder-it-fact-or-fiction/page/0/2

https://www.spectrumnews.org/opinion/guest-blog-understanding-aggression-in-autism/

talk about how things like depression and bad childhood memories can lead to a person becoming violent, not autism itself. However, autistic people often experience more hardship than non-autistic people and therefore that might make them more violent. So what the articles says that autistic people (A) experience hardship (B) and hardship can cause violence (C).

A leads to B leads to C.

The people in these articles take a strong stance that "it's B that leads to C, not A to C" but to me they are the same. If you remove A then the risk of B happening is dramatically reduced, and as a result so is C.

So at best I think these articles says "autistic indirectly causes violence".

 

Studies like these are also interesting:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170531193211.htm

 

It says that while autism might not necessarily make a person more violent, the other disorders people with autism usually has (such as ADHD) do. So while autism itself doesn't make a person more violent, autistic people are. But I would argue that since autistic people have a higher risk of having for example ADHD, which in turn increases the risk of violent behavior, if your child is born with autism it has a higher risk of being violent, by proxy.

 

 

Do I need to link sources which shows that autistic people get physically abused than non-autistic children or do you take my word on that? I'm struggling to find the specific study I am thinking of right now.

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

 People would have better lives if they were straight, people would have better lives if they were white,

I don't believe that, and that highly depends on other factors, even more-so than autism.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

people would have better lives if they spoke English.

Well yeah, and I am all for mandatory teaching of English in school. Most first would tries have mandatory English lessons.

You make this sound like it's a bad thing, but I think it's good that we teach people English. It makes their lives better so why not?

In Sweden, parents are forced by law to ensure that their children go to school. In the school, there are state enforced directives of what the children should learn, and English is part of that.

The parents can not opt-out of their child getting taught English. It is forced, and I think that's good.

[spartaman64]

16 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The violence thing is not unsupported.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27185105

School shooting perpetrators are over-represented in school shooting cases. 8% of school shooters have ASD, and another ~20% have shown signs but had not been diagnosed. So as much as ~30% of school shooters may have autism, compared to ~1% for the general population.

what do they mean by signs? i think its a dangerous narrative to paint people who have autism as dangerous and prone to violence especially with what i think is weak made up evidence. if a school shooter likes books is that a sign of autism? should we fear everyone that likes books?  people use similar tactics to say other minorities are prone to violence and are dangerous. also i have ADHD and i assure you i am very much against violence

[LAwLz]

22 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Evolution cares not for society

Ehm, you might want to look into evolution a bit more if you don't think it cares about society.

Humans survived and evolved to what we are today because we adapted to living in a society. Without living in groups humans would have died out.

 

25 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

What evolution does is take differences in genetics and takes the strengths from every line to build a stronger life form.

Well, not not really.

Evolution do not "take the strengths from every line to build a stronger life form".

Evolution is "here are 5 slightly different animals, if 3 survive better than the other 2 then those other two deserve to die out because they were weak and we should have more like the 3 that survived".

Evolution is not intelligent design, and I do not believe evolution would be kind to autistic people since humans survived thanks to social skills and structures.

 

30 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

We need to embrace those mutations

Only if they are beneficial. We should not embrace detrimental mutations (talking in general here, not specifically about autism).

 

30 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

especially as we as a race are a very long way from understanding the mechanism behind it.

What do we not understand much about? Mutations? We understand a lot about it. It's a very well studied field.

 

31 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Attempting to wipe out what some consider are genetic faults can lead down only one path, extinction.

What? Wiping out genetic faults is the driving factor in evolution. Without the mechanism which causes genetic failures to get wiped out evolution would not function.

Survival of the fittest.

 

 

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Euthanasia at birth isn't a "cure" for anything.

I am not talking about euthanasia.

 

26 minutes ago, Sauron said:

While we're at it, why don't we get rid of people who are genetically predisposed to be too short, too fat, too thin, too whatever according to some subjective and arrogant idea of what lives are worth living?

If there was a pill that made your baby immune to getting too fat/too thin/too weak/too dumb then yeah, I'd be all for that.

I am not against the "genetically design babies" idea. If we have the technology to make children be born healthy and without potentially harmful defects then I am all for it.

I am not talking about forced abortions, I'm talking about cures for people already born (or soon to be born).

 

30 minutes ago, Sauron said:

What makes you think you'd make the cut?

I'd personally want to change a few things about myself if I had the option.

 

30 minutes ago, Sauron said:

If we could "cure" people like you from thinking like this through brainwashing and a thorough change of your personality, or just prevent them from being born, would you be ok with it?

Me thinking like this do not have an objective and measurable negative impact on society or the people around me, so I don't think there is any basis for "curing" me.

 

31 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I would argue this way of thinking causes more harm and suffering than autism or Down syndrome ever has.

Do you have any statistics to back that up with?

 

31 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Need I remind you of which prominent historical figure thought disabled people were a burden on society and that we'd be better off without them?

The difference is that Hitler's idea of a solution was "kill them" while my idea of a solution is "cure them through modern medicine".

I am not advocating killing anyone. Treating a disease is quite the opposite of killing someone.

[spartaman64]

44 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If there was a pill that made your baby immune to getting too fat/too thin/too weak/too dumb then yeah, I'd be all for that.

I am not against the "genetically design babies" idea. If we have the technology to make children be born healthy and without potentially harmful defects then I am all for it.

I am not talking about forced abortions, I'm talking about cures for people already born (or soon to be born).

 

I'd personally want to change a few things about myself if I had the option.

 

Me thinking like this do not have an objective and measurable negative impact on society or the people around me, so I don't think there is any basis for "curing" me.

 

Do you have any statistics to back that up with?

 

The difference is that Hitler's idea of a solution was "kill them" while my idea of a solution is "cure them through modern medicine".

I am not advocating killing anyone. Treating a disease is quite the opposite of killing someone.

i not for genetically altering iq because that will greatly increase the gap between rich and poor and shut down social mobility. and the way of thinking that people that are different eg have autism, are minorities, etc are inferior is very much dangerous and caused much more problems than the people who are different

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I'd personally want to change a few things about myself if I had the option.

You answered positively to the idea of aborting babies because they have Down syndrome, that's not "changing a few things about yourself" my dude. You're contradicting yourself. Not to mention the things you're advocating for don't include a choice - you don't get to choose what gets "cured" out of you.

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Me thinking like this do not have an objective and measurable negative impact on society or the people around me, so I don't think there is any basis for "curing" me.

Oh yes it does, you might want to read up on mad houses, lobotomies, nazis killing disabled people, babies being abandoned... this style of thinking has caused immeasurable suffering and I can prove it.

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Do you have any statistics to back that up with?

https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/people-with-disabilities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy#Prevalence

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-tragic-tale-of-chinas-orphanages-98-of-abandoned-children-have-disabilities/article17625887/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunatic_asylum#Eugenics_movement

 

Do you have any statistics showing people with Down syndrome tortured and/or killed hundreds of thousands of people?

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The difference is that Hitler's idea of a solution was "kill them" while my idea of a solution is "cure them through modern medicine".

Same idea, different method. "Curing" someone with Down syndrome or autism would just mean making them another person. There's no getting around the fact that at one point "modern medicine" was lobotomy - its advocates would argue for it just as you are arguing for this: "It's a cure", "they don't suffer", "it's better than living like that", "they're a danger to society" - or hormonal therapy for gay people to "reduce their libido".

 

All of this has been said and done before and is now universally recognized as barbaric. It doesn't matter how humane the """cure""" sounds to you, you're talking about fundamentally changing people in a way that compromises their identity. The fundamental issue is that you don't see their lives as being worth living as the person they are. If these people have some profound discomfort with how they are (and not just because stupid people treat them like shit) then sure, if possible we should give them the option of doing so and make sure everyone can access it - but recommending the abortion of disabled babies or forcing a "cure" on people who don't want it because "they don't know what they're saying"... hell no.

 

Also there's an X-Men movie and quite a few comics about this.

3 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

i not for it because that will greatly increase the gap between rich and poor and shut down social mobility. and the way of thinking that people that are different eg have autism, are minorities, etc are inferior is very much dangerous and caused much more problems than the people who are different

Yep. Also imagine thinking these people need to be "cured" despite themselves and then putting a price tag on it. Oh, and iq is an extremely flawed metric.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Ehm, you might want to look into evolution a bit more if you don't think it cares about society.

Humans survived and evolved to what we are today because we adapted to living in a society. Without living in groups humans would have died out.

Not all life on the planet has evolved due to society. It could also be argued that modern evolution of man is driven by wheat, we are slaves to wheat and not as some may suggest the other way around.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Well, not not really.

Evolution do not "take the strengths from every line to build a stronger life form".

Evolution is "here are 5 slightly different animals, if 3 survive better than the other 2 then those other two deserve to die out because they were weak and we should have more like the 3 that survived".

Evolution is not intelligent design, and I do not believe evolution would be kind to autistic people since humans survived thanks to social skills and structures.

 

Correct, which is what I said, the weaker groups will either die out or evolve in a different way to survive. Life is very resilient. As for autism, someone has already pointed out a group where autism has been beneficial to their survival. 
 

In a similar vein think about sickle cell. For some it is life threatening, for the vast majority of those with the genetic mutation it saves their lives from malaria. If we took away that mutation a thousand years ago because in our arrogance we think we know better, how many would had died early as a result?

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

Only if they are beneficial. We should not embrace detrimental mutations (talking in general here, not specifically about autism).

 

See above re sickle cell.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

What do we not understand much about? Mutations? We understand a lot about it. It's a very well studied field.

 

I live just five miles from a genetic research facility, a very well renowned one at that. As such I know quite a few scientists that work there. I can assure you, they will all agree they are barely scratching at the surface knowledge wise.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

 

 

What? Wiping out genetic faults is the driving factor in evolution. Without the mechanism which causes genetic failures to get wiped out evolution would not function.

Survival of the fittest.

 

 

Totally wrong, without the genetic mutations evolution would stop, and that is what I said. Some paths will be dead ends, others will lead to strengthening of the species. As we know very little (see above) we cannot be so arrogant to think we know better. As a race we have proven our inability to get almost anything right. While we pat ourselves on the back for inventing the wheel, the steam engine or the chipset, look at the massive destruction to every habitat on the planet we have done and continue to do. We do not understand the human brain outside a small working knowledge, we do not know what makes us sentient, we do not understand thought, soul, or what makes our personality. To mess with that simply because we want people to conform to our so called social norms is plainly wrong. A huge amount of damage can and probably will be done as a direct result. While I think it is acceptable to mitigate the worst symptoms SOME with autism suffer, the rest of what makes them individual should not be tampered with, especially by a rich and spoilt brat who has never lived in the real world. He should stick to smashing truck windows and apologising to heroic cave diving rescuers for calling him a child abuser. 

Seems this thread has gone way off topic so I will leave you to it.

[DKL]

On 11/25/2019 at 2:39 AM, Goldilock said:

Have you ever being left out in basically every social group? or you are in mid 20s and not invited in any whatsapp group?

 

If there is legit measure to help me coping with autism, why not?.

I am both of these things. My closest thing to a social group is my coworkers. And we don't meetup outside work, despite my attempts to.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

What I said is true though. Autistic people are involved in more violence. Even the studies you yourself linked indicates that, although they are talking about it in different ways. For example they say the cause for violence isn't autism but rather byproducts like troubled childhoods.

The way I look at it, if autism leads to a troubled childhood, and a troubled childhood leads to conflict, then autism is the cause of conflict in those cases. Isn't that a reasonable and logical way of looking at things?

A leads to be, which leads to C and therefore A leads to C.

 

Like the study on NIH says, the prevalence of ASD in mass shooters is around 8 times as high as the general population, and that's without counting the 21% of shootings where the perpetrator(s) had indications of ASD but were not properly diagnosed.

 

There is no doubt that autistic people are at a higher risk of being victims of violence too, but I have never said anything contrary to that.

What I said was that autism leads to more violence, be it perpetrators or victims. But shouldn't being the victims of violence be a reason why it would be good to remove the autism? That might be seen as victim blaming but if I as a parent had a choice between my kid having a higher or lower risk of being physically attacked then of course I would want the lower risk.

It might also be that they are the victims of physical violence but it might not be entirely unprovoked. Not picking up on social ques and saying the wrong thing at the wrong time can get you in trouble, and that risk is most likely larger with autistic people.

 

 

So how about treatment for those who only suffer from it greatly like the 85% statistic I am quoting?

 

 

I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's how I look at it.

Autistic people have trouble seeing and imaging what things are like for another person. I think that hinders autistic peoples' ability to understand how their condition affects other people.

 

 

Well by that logic we can't draw any conclusions.

I am going with the most accurate and up to date statistics we have. Shouldn't we always use that when drawing conclusions?

Like I suggested earlier, how about we only treat the ones who are suffering heavily from autism? For example the people included in the 85% in the statistics I've quoted.

 

O have no doubt in my mind that a lot of scientific breakthrough have been done by people with autism. But did they do those breakthrough because they were autistic? Would they have been able to do them without their autism? If those people hadn't discovered those things, would someone else have done it?

I feel like you're making a lot of assumptions and giving credit to autism when it might not be warranted. I guess I feel the same way about this as you feel about me saying autism causes violence.

 

 

Neither am I. But the studies I have read and cited shows that a majority of them have difficulties and would probably be better off without autism. Since we don't have a cure yet we can only look at statistics and compare autistic people vs non-autistic people. For example autistic people in general report lower life satisfaction than non-autistic people. The conclusion I draw from that is that if we had a cure, autistic people could increase their life satisfaction. I see that as a good thing.

However, that might be a though sell to someone with autism since it means trading something known against something unknown.

"A bird in the hand" and all that.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The violence thing is not unsupported.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27185105

School shooting perpetrators are over-represented in school shooting cases. 8% of school shooters have ASD, and another ~20% have shown signs but had not been diagnosed. So as much as ~30% of school shooters may have autism, compared to ~1% for the general population.

 

 

 

 

 

Other articles mr moose linked such as these:

https://www.mdedge.com/psychiatry/article/77690/neurology/violent-behavior-autism-spectrum-disorder-it-fact-or-fiction/page/0/2

https://www.spectrumnews.org/opinion/guest-blog-understanding-aggression-in-autism/

talk about how things like depression and bad childhood memories can lead to a person becoming violent, not autism itself. However, autistic people often experience more hardship than non-autistic people and therefore that might make them more violent. So what the articles says that autistic people (A) experience hardship (B) and hardship can cause violence (C).

A leads to B leads to C.

The people in these articles take a strong stance that "it's B that leads to C, not A to C" but to me they are the same. If you remove A then the risk of B happening is dramatically reduced, and as a result so is C.

So at best I think these articles says "autistic indirectly causes violence".

 

Studies like these are also interesting:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170531193211.htm

 

It says that while autism might not necessarily make a person more violent, the other disorders people with autism usually has (such as ADHD) do. So while autism itself doesn't make a person more violent, autistic people are. But I would argue that since autistic people have a higher risk of having for example ADHD, which in turn increases the risk of violent behavior, if your child is born with autism it has a higher risk of being violent, by proxy.

 

 

Do I need to link sources which shows that autistic people get physically abused than non-autistic children or do you take my word on that? I'm struggling to find the specific study I am thinking of right now.

 

 

 

I don't believe that, and that highly depends on other factors, even more-so than autism.

 

 

Well yeah, and I am all for mandatory teaching of English in school. Most first would tries have mandatory English lessons.

You make this sound like it's a bad thing, but I think it's good that we teach people English. It makes their lives better so why not?

In Sweden, parents are forced by law to ensure that their children go to school. In the school, there are state enforced directives of what the children should learn, and English is part of that.

The parents can not opt-out of their child getting taught English. It is forced, and I think that's good.

 

 

I'm just skimming over your posts now because I don't want to be offended with more ignorant pondering. 

 

This from the article I linked that you claim says autism causes more violence:

 

Quote

Crucially, ASD may influence, but does not cause, an individual to commit extreme violent acts such as a mass shooting episode.

 

Lots of things result in people being involved in violence,  by your logic every single police officer, ambulance paramedic, soldier, security guard  is naturally predisposed to being a violent thug.   Your illogical rambling about this causing that causing this being the result of that is some serious mental gymnastics to make a lie look plausible.

 

Truly your ignorance on this topic is huge and your claims are way out of line.   

 

 

 

For the record I have worked with more than 400 students over the last 9 years, 20 of them on the spectrum,  none of the 20 were violent, plenty of the 400 were and bullied the 20 a fair amount. 

 

If people with ASD are violent it is because people like you in an ignorant bubble of delusion keep bullying them and telling them they are a burden on society.

 

 

[Arika]

Christ, who would have thought that giving people the choice of being cured of autism would be such a huge point of contention.

 

And i dont think the "well what if they force it?" arguement is valid. Becuase you could make the same claim against any desiese ever that a cure has been found for or any societal situation were there can be an improvement.

[Bombastinator]

3 hours ago, Arika S said:

Christ, who would have thought that giving people the choice of being cured of autism would be such a huge point of contention.

 

And i dont think the "well what if they force it?" arguement is valid. Becuase you could make the same claim against any desiese ever that a cure has been found for or any societal situation were there can be an improvement.

..And the exact same thing begins over again.  This is a problem already solved.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Arika S said:

Christ, who would have thought that giving people the choice of being cured of autism would be such a huge point of contention.

 

And i dont think the "well what if they force it?" arguement is valid. Becuase you could make the same claim against any desiese ever that a cure has been found for or any societal situation were there can be an improvement.

No one is disputing the advantages of a cure in the event of absolute certainty the cure would actually be beneficial. 

 

Because Autism is wide ranging from burdensome to essential for furthering technology, there is no way to conclude that unless the person is so severe they can't function at all (full spacisity) or they have become an adult and can decide for themselves.    

 

Honestly, in many cases curing a child of Autism without being able to predict the future self of that person as an adult would be as stupid as giving a developing child hormone blockers because they are gender confused.   In many cases the adult autistic who is intelligent enough and well aware of themselves enough to know if they want to remain autistic or not.   Deciding for them when they are children is  a gamble.