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

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

This is a computer hardware site.  I suspect there are a lot of high functioning autistic people here.  I am one, but there were clearly others that posted.

 

It is amazing how many high functioning autistics there are.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if we discover it's more like 1 in 30 as many I know are diagnosed or refused diagnosis for various reasons.  

 

EDIT: also I tagged you because you are the most active and your reasoning has been very concise and on point. Even the bits I didn't fully agree with are still valid.

[Technous285]

10 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

There was a Sci-fi book about this concept in the 50’s. “1984?” Or was it the other one?  I forget.

1984 (published in 1949) was where we get the concept of Big Brother watching over the populace and thought policing everyone, trying to keep them riled up to be passionate about being patriotic for their nation being constantly in war, but apathetic enough to not rock the system, whilst manipulating history to suit the government's fancy of the day. Then "treatment" involving literal torture to "adjust" the person in to being what the government wants out of them if someone doesn't fall in-line with what the government wants from them all the time.

But that's a whole OTHER set of problems with the modern world we shouldn't get in to right now, though I would suggest the following video on the book -

 

Though I could see the latter part of that first paragraph description of the book and movie as being applicable here, I'll leave it at that.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Technous285 said:

1984 (published in 1949) was where we get the concept of Big Brother watching over the populace and thought policing everyone, trying to keep them riled up to be passionate about being patriotic for their nation being constantly in war, but apathetic enough to not rock the system, whilst manipulating history to suit the government's fancy of the day. Then "treatment" involving literal torture to "adjust" the person in to being what the government wants out of them if someone doesn't fall in-line with what the government wants from them all the time.

But that's a whole OTHER set of problems with the modern world we shouldn't get in to right now, though I would suggest the following video on the book -

 

Though I could see the latter part of that first paragraph description of the book and movie as being applicable here, I'll leave it at that.

I laugh every time someone brings up this book as evidence of  government intention.

 

 

Lets use a fiction novel written in the 40's based on observations of the 20's and 30's to argue evidence for an outcome of government decisions almost a century later.

 

News Flash,  nothing has changed, people are still people (naive and easily duped into conspiracies). governments still operate the same way (half corrupt and in control),  the only thing that is getting more common is democracy and transparency.   Take from that what anyone will, but it still makes reference to 1984 as evidence to anything as laughable.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

36 minutes ago, Technous285 said:

1984 (published in 1949) was where we get the concept of Big Brother watching over the populace and thought policing everyone, trying to keep them riled up to be passionate about being patriotic for their nation being constantly in war, but apathetic enough to not rock the system, whilst manipulating history to suit the government's fancy of the day. Then "treatment" involving literal torture to "adjust" the person in to being what the government wants out of them if someone doesn't fall in-line with what the government wants from them all the time.

But that's a whole OTHER set of problems with the modern world we shouldn't get in to right now, though I would suggest the following video on the book -

 

Though I could see the latter part of that first paragraph description of the book and movie as being applicable here, I'll leave it at that.

 

29 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I laugh every time someone brings up this book as evidence of  government intention.

 

 

Lets use a fiction novel written in the 40's based on observations of the 20's and 30's to argue evidence for an outcome of government decisions almost a century later.

 

News Flash,  nothing has changed, people are still people (naive and easily duped into conspiracies). governments still operate the same way (half corrupt and in control),  the only thing that is getting more common is democracy and transparency.   Take from that what anyone will, but it still makes reference to 1984 as evidence to anything as laughable.

 

 

I don’t mention it as evidence, it’s not evidence of anything except perhaps that people don’t change much, and it does that mostly by being old.  There are other older books that do it better.  It describes concepts though, which makes it handy.  All models are by definition wrong but some of them are useful.

 

I mentioned it as a set of two books that together illustrate a point central to the problem.  I tend to think of them both in the same breath and tend to confuse them.

The other one though.  The one whose title I can’t remember.  Begins maybe with “M”? It’s the one with the society that does eugenics.  They have classes of people.  The two books are sides of the same coin really.  It’s why I mentioned both.

 

They were both written during and released shortly after world war 2 and tried to describe the problems with facism.  They both also went after communism in a big way.  One ws even written by a communist, partially as a criticism of how he felt actual communist philosophy was being denigrated by the Soviet communists

 

BANG just hit me.  Not an M.  “Brave new world”.  

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

What's my position?  As I said earlier in the thread, I would never begrudge a treatment being made available to those who are informed.

Others are indeed suggesting just that.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Which is why people talking about forced treatment and arguing all sorts of irrelevant (and often very wrong) edge cases as reasoning to do so need to chill,  because they are effectively making the exact same mistake the doctors did thinking lobotomies was the way to go.

Forced treatment may well make sense if a "cure" was actually created, and it was well researched and tested before hand, and we could with confidence say that the side effects were minimal or non-existent. But since that hasn't happened (and we're no where close to that happening), I think talking about potential cures has to be with the understanding that any experimental treatment will by it's nature only include willing and consenting adults of sound mind.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Keep bringing it up?  I made one post referring to it because it is a classic example of what some people are calling for here.

The following references and comparisons to lobotomies from this thread:

Bombastinator made the original reference once on page 3

Sauron brought it back on on page 9, and again on page 10
You brought it up 3 times in one post on page 10,

 

So while you only brought it up once yourself, it's a recurring theme of the thread.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Not just research, but the social conditions that also are effected by such a "cure"  My points of contention are to those who want to force a blanket cure and do not understand the implication of such.

Well, that is something that would be covered under the research.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

No one is saying the research shouldn't happen.  Who said anything like that?  we are arguing that any treatment should not be forced, treatment should be highly guarded so as not to cause more problems for those informed who don;t want it.

Yes, people are saying that. One poster suggested that an autism cure was insulting. Most of the people who are against it don't seem to be arguing for more research, but arguing that the entire idea of a cure is preposterous.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

The biggest problem here is that many people do not understand Autism.  It's nothing like any other condition that it has been compared to.  A lot of the reasoning and logic people are using in this thread is so far off the mark in it's applicability to autism it is simply astounding.   

This is totally fine, yes Autism is definitely unique.

 

But that doesn't mean all forms of it are desirable. If we can eliminate the downsides of autism, and the risks are acceptable to a consenting person, we should.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Until this thread I would have assumed I was close to the most educated on the subject (I not only live it, but am a career for two autistic boys, and have been part of many working groups in education for autistics), but I would easily concede to @Bombastinator being more educated or at least equally educated at this point.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

.

Forced treatment may well make sense if a "cure" was actually created, and it was well researched and tested before hand, and we could with confidence say that the side effects were minimal or non-existent. But since that hasn't happened (and we're no where close to that happening), I think talking about potential cures has to be with the understanding that any experimental treatment will by it's nature only include willing and consenting adults of sound mind.

 

 

 

Thing is, the experimentation is not just happening to consenting adults, children are also being experimented on. You can see that in the documentary I posted earlier.

 

The issue I have with any treatment or so called cure of this nature is as many have already said, if you treat someone of a young age you will never know who they could have been. You will never know if you are destroying something of them. TBH I feel the same about forcing religion on children, they have no choice and are too young to make any informed decision, but that is going off topic.

 

If you are a parent and you are told your child may or may not have problems in later life a certain amount of worry sets in. Parents naturally have an image of how their child should be perfect. Some parents really struggle with the thought their children may not fit the image of a “normal” child. Those parent sometimes will clutch at straws and grab any hope thrown at them. Often the cost is just too high both financially and for the well-being of the family involved. You can see just that in the aforementioned documentary. There is also quite a large industry that just sells nothing but hope to those willing to pay. From vile newspapers to iffy clinics to evangelical preachers. Elon ‘electric Jesus’ Musk fits into that group quite easily when he makes statements like this latest one.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Thing is, the experimentation is not just happening to consenting adults, children are also being experimented on. You can see that in the documentary I posted earlier.

Experimentation for this "cure" isn't happening at all. It hasn't even been proposed as a hypothetical yet - just musings of possible applications in the future. I will not comment on other things that aren't directly related to this device and it's possible usage.

2 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

The issue I have with any treatment or so called cure of this nature is as many have already said, if you treat someone of a young age you will never know who they could have been. You will never know if you are destroying something of them. TBH I feel the same about forcing religion on children, they have no choice and are too young to make any informed decision, but that is going off topic.

And? If we do the research, and over years determine that on average the outcome is vastly improved, and there are reliable markers to look for, there should be no problem. We force treatment on children all the time because children cannot make informed decisions yet.

 

The only consideration is to ensure that the treatment is ethical and worth the risk.

2 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

If you are a parent and you are told your child may or may not have problems in later life a certain amount of worry sets in. Parents naturally have an image of how their child should be perfect. Some parents really struggle with the thought their children may not fit the image of a “normal” child. Those parent sometimes will clutch at straws and grab any hope thrown at them. Often the cost is just too high both financially and for the well-being of the family involved. You can see just that in the aforementioned documentary. There is also quite a large industry that just sells nothing but hope to those willing to pay. From vile newspapers to iffy clinics to evangelical preachers. Elon ‘electric Jesus’ Musk fits into that group quite easily when he makes statements like this latest one.

And?

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Others are indeed suggesting just that.

Forced treatment may well make sense if a "cure" was actually created, and it was well researched and tested before hand, and we could with confidence say that the side effects were minimal or non-existent. But since that hasn't happened (and we're no where close to that happening), I think talking about potential cures has to be with the understanding that any experimental treatment will by it's nature only include willing and consenting adults of sound mind.

The following references and comparisons to lobotomies from this thread:

Bombastinator made the original reference once on page 3

Sauron brought it back on on page 9, and again on page 10
You brought it up 3 times in one post on page 10,

 

So while you only brought it up once yourself, it's a recurring theme of the thread.

Well, that is something that would be covered under the research.

Yes, people are saying that. One poster suggested that an autism cure was insulting. Most of the people who are against it don't seem to be arguing for more research, but arguing that the entire idea of a cure is preposterous.

This is totally fine, yes Autism is definitely unique.

 

But that doesn't mean all forms of it are desirable. If we can eliminate the downsides of autism, and the risks are acceptable to a consenting person, we should.

 

I agree with most all of this.  There are a few nit picks

 

suggestions by others:

this can fairly be said. I’m not sure it’s as true as being treated though.  Not wrong, but perhaps less common than it looks.

remember this thread is about Elon Musk’s commentary about the research.  Many of them were saying that they doubted Elon Musk specifically. The issue is one of likelihood of actual findings and success.  Both of which imho Elon overstates. 
 

forced treatment:

 theres that magic pill rearing it’s head.  The problem, as I have stated before, is that it would need to be 100%. Anything less than that and it very quickly turns into horrific abuse. And 100% can’t happen.  There are levels of course.  IF the research (which I also think should happen though it’s a bit of a minefield and need medical ethics oversight) finds anything it will not be 100%.  It might be 20% though.  Even 20% is useful and worth searching for.  Affected individuals would need to decide if it was worth it to them as a treatment.   but it still can’t be forced. Or even coerced. Partially because 100% is unachievable.

 

lobotomies:

lobotomies is my fault.  It was intended as an example of a treatment that was oversold by medicine and it’s horrible side effects were late blooming and hidden by doctors.  Until it exploded. IMHO There is a real chance that this could happen with autism treatment.  Especially with Elon Musk level hyperbole behind it.  It’s scary.

 Lobotomies are actually very vey rarely still done.  In very special and extreme circumstances. Fewer than 1 a year. Doctors are more careful now.

 

 

[Goldilock]

On 11/27/2019 at 3:15 AM, DKL said:

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.

Now you see what I mean.

 

Imagine if this AI implant can give rating to cue us how much a person actually likes or not based on facial expression, texts, and speaking tone. It doesn't "cure" autism but makes life a whole lot easier.

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, Goldilock said:

Now you see what I mean.

 

Imagine if this AI implant can give rating to cue us how much a person actually likes or not based on facial expression, texts, and speaking tone. It doesn't "cure" autism but makes life a whole lot easier.

That’s just glasses.  In theory anyway.  They were being tested a while back anyway.  Then they vanished from the news.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

 

I don’t mention it as evidence, it’s not evidence of anything except perhaps that people don’t change much, and it does that mostly by being old.  There are other older books that do it better.  It describes concepts though, which makes it handy.  All models are by definition wrong but some of them are useful.

 

I mentioned it as a set of two books that together illustrate a point central to the problem.  I tend to think of them both in the same breath and tend to confuse them.

The other one though.  The one whose title I can’t remember.  Begins maybe with “M”? It’s the one with the society that does eugenics.  They have classes of people.  The two books are sides of the same coin really.  It’s why I mentioned both.

 

They were both written during and released shortly after world war 2 and tried to describe the problems with facism.  They both also went after communism in a big way.  One ws even written by a communist, partially as a criticism of how he felt actual communist philosophy was being denigrated by the Soviet communists

 

BANG just hit me.  Not an M.  “Brave new world”.  

 

 

I wasn't pointing that post at you,   It was more a general commentary on the numerous times that book gets raised as evidence in discussion regarding government intervention.

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Others are indeed suggesting just that.

But not me.

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Forced treatment may well make sense if a "cure" was actually created, and it was well researched and tested before hand, and we could with confidence say that the side effects were minimal or non-existent. But since that hasn't happened (and we're no where close to that happening), I think talking about potential cures has to be with the understanding that any experimental treatment will by it's nature only include willing and consenting adults of sound mind.

How do you separate forced cures from curing people who don;t want to be cured? Even if we had a fully tested cure with no side effects, some of us are proud to be high  function autistic that further the human race and pay our dues.    Forced curing might well retard technological development as you remove the core group of people who have the capacity, intelligence and skill to focus on a major project.

 

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

The following references and comparisons to lobotomies from this thread:

Bombastinator made the original reference once on page 3

Sauron brought it back on on page 9, and again on page 10
You brought it up 3 times in one post on page 10,

 

So while you only brought it up once yourself, it's a recurring theme of the thread.

So we agree I didn't keep bringing it up, but it seems to be a recurring theme which hasn't been resolved. 

 

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Well, that is something that would be covered under the research.

Not scientific research, those sorts of issues are left to governments, no thanks.

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Yes, people are saying that. One poster suggested that an autism cure was insulting. Most of the people who are against it don't seem to be arguing for more research, but arguing that the entire idea of a cure is preposterous.

This is totally fine, yes Autism is definitely unique.

It is perfectly ok for autistic individuals to be totally against it, it is o.,k for autistic individuals to partly against it or even all for it,  however it is not O.K for non autistics and people with little understanding of the condition to be making such statements.  They lack the experience and understanding required. 

 

Unless you know what you are talking about, demanding that a cure be compulsory is dangerous and insulting.

 

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

But that doesn't mean all forms of it are desirable. If we can eliminate the downsides of autism, and the risks are acceptable to a consenting person, we should.

 

 

So now you might be arguing for a very selective treatment that only cures one part and not the other, gets rid of social anxiety but retains the intelligence and ability to concentrate.   That will never happen in our life times.  If it does I will be very surprised.

[Bombastinator]

@mr moose No worries.  Public forums and all.  I brought it up and apparently it was causing some sort of issue so I thought I would hold forth on it as to why i did.  It did bang my brain hard enough to knock loose the second name at least so there’s that.

[LAwLz]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Not really, not when the person he is taking to has said this:

 

He also said people should be forcibly treated :

Yes, and like I have explained several times is that when I talk about forced treatment I mean either treating fetuses/babies, or the ones who are so far on the end of the autism spectrum that they can't work or function in society. The "45 year old with a full time carer" that @dalekphalm mentioned.

I am not sure it should be left up to those two groups of people to decide if they should get treated or not.

 

Children already don't get to decide if they get treated or what they are allowed/disallowed to do, so why should they in this case?

The adult example is similar too. Chances are people on the far end of the spectrum get decisions made for them all the time (by their caregiver or guardian), because they are seen as unfit to make their own decisions too. So why should they be in charged for whether or not they should be treated?

 

That's my reasoning.

 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Let's forget the fact that there is zero evidence they are more violent and plenty of evidence to show they are over represented as victims of violence.

All the statements I have made which references such things are backed up by science.

Victims of violence is still "involved in violence", which is what I said. One explanation I gave for this is that they might not pick up on social ques which can lead to fights. Say the wrong thing to the wrong person at school and yes, you will get punched. It's not directly the autistic person's fault, but at the same time facts are facts. Without autism the fight would probably never have happened (again, the statistics show this).

 

I also said that another explanation, which is what your links you posted also talks about, is that while autism might not be the primary reason for these people being violent, it might be an indirect cause.

Autism lead to troubled upbringing, which can lead to violent tendencies, which leads to violence.

A -> B -> C.

A does not directly cause C, but it is an aspect that greatly increases the risk of B, which is directly linked to C.

I mean, why else do you think autistic people are so over-represented in school shooters?

I am not sure I ever posted the link, but one of the studies I have cited says that 8% of the perpetrators at school shootings were diagnosed with autism, with another ~20% not being diagnosed but potentially had autism. I don't think that's a coincidence.

And just to be clear, I am not saying "autism = violent school shooter". School shooters are still a minority. But I think having autism contributes to the factors which causes people to become school shooters, or violent potentially violent in general. Things like troubled upbringing and being bullied. Those things are pretty well documented to breed violence in people, and it's pretty well documented that autistic people are often bullied and have troubled upbringings. Correct?

 

 

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

blanket solutions may indeed have the opposite effect, taking someone who thinks they are 6 and giving them the realization of being 40 but still only able to function as if they were 6,  would that be better or worse for them?

That's indeed a major concern. Just curing and then leaving them to themselves would probably not all of a sudden make them completely independent. That's why I later suggested that maybe we should only treat children so that they do not end up in that situation to begin with?

Or maybe it would be possible for some of the cured people to actually adapt and get a normal life? Or maybe they don't fully adapt but they get better lives?

 

 

If it seems like I have changed my arguments a lot throughout the thread it's because I don't think I have a perfect solution and rather spitball out ideas that might work, and also because people have thrown a ton of hypothetical scenarios at me and strawman me like crazy and then the entire conversation devolves to only be about that specific example, such as:

"Maybe we should only treat children with autism so they don't have issues to begin with and their personalities doesn't dramatically change all of a sudden? Assuming we had a perfect cure of course."

"That's like what they do on Island with down's syndrome children. They have almost eradicated Downs syndrome in that country! It's just like what the Nazis did to the Jews during WW2!"

"I don't see how eradicating a serious illness is a bad thing. I don't think abortion is the good way to do it but at Island it's the best we got right now. I would rather see a cure to treat people though."

"So you're okay with aborting autistic children! Stop being such a Hitler! You just said you think abortion is a cure for autism you fucking fascist!"

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, and like I have explained several times is that when I talk about forced treatment I mean either treating fetuses/babies, or the ones who are so far on the end of the autism spectrum that they can't work or function in society. The "45 year old with a full time carer" that @dalekphalm mentioned.

I am not sure it should be left up to those two groups of people to decide if they should get treated or not.

 

Not good enough.   You don't get to decide who has to have treatment,  PERIOD.

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Children already don't get to decide if they get treated or what they are allowed/disallowed to do, so why should they in this case?

Because autism is significantly different from all other cases,  if you knew anything about autism you'd know that.  People are trying to tell you it is too complicated to be that simple but you just refuse to listen.

 

 

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The adult example is similar too. Chances are people on the far end of the spectrum get decisions made for them all the time (by their caregiver or guardian), because they are seen as unfit to make their own decisions too. So why should they be in charged for whether or not they should be treated?

 

That's my reasoning.

 

 

There is a reason you don't get to make medical decisions of this magnitude over other people,   For one you can't determine what type of person someone will become or their life by determining they are autistic.  That is just not possible.   Not even remotely.  And for the other,  even old men who are severely intellectually disabled still have rights and there is a huge world of medical ethics that go deeply into what you can and cannot do for them.  

 

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

All the statements I have made which references such things are backed up by science.

Victims of violence is still "involved in violence", which is what I said. One explanation I gave for this is that they might not pick up on social ques which can lead to fights. Say the wrong thing to the wrong person at school and yes, you will get punched. It's not directly the autistic person's fault, but at the same time facts are facts. Without autism the fight would probably never have happened (again, the statistics show this).

 

I have linked to 5 articles that say it doesn't and yet you keep drumming the old tune,  saying it over and over doesn't make it true. 

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I also said that another explanation, which is what your links you posted also talks about, is that while autism might not be the primary reason for these people being violent, it might be an indirect cause.

Autism lead to troubled upbringing, which can lead to violent tendencies, which leads to violence.

A -> B -> C.

A does not directly cause C, but it is an aspect that greatly increases the risk of B, which is directly linked to C.

I mean, why else do you think autistic people are so over-represented in school shooters?

I am not sure I ever posted the link, but one of the studies I have cited says that 8% of the perpetrators at school shootings were diagnosed with autism, with another ~20% not being diagnosed but potentially had autism. I don't think that's a coincidence.

And just to be clear, I am not saying "autism = violent school shooter". School shooters are still a minority. But I think having autism contributes to the factors which causes people to become school shooters, or violent potentially violent in general. Things like troubled upbringing and being bullied. Those things are pretty well documented to breed violence in people, and it's pretty well documented that autistic people are often bullied and have troubled upbringings. Correct?

 

Then address those issues and not the autistic who seems to be the victim.    For fucks sake what you are doing here is bordering on victim blaming at best and stupid at worst.  It has been proven outright that autism does not make any one more predisposed to violence, in fact quite the opposite.   Do I need to quote those articles again:

 

 

Quote

 

A diagnosis of autism alone does not increase the risk of violent offending ...

 

Interestingly, when researchers considered individuals with ADHD or conduct disorder, an additional diagnosis of autism was actually found to reduce the risk of violent criminality,

 

Interesting how the diagnosis of autism reduces the likelihood of violent offenses.  SO STOP LYING ABOUT IT!! 

 

It's not up for debate, the evidence clear, you cannot make those claims unless you wish to be dishonest about it, misconstrue the data, the researchers conclusions and continue to tell everyone that we autistic's are more disposed to being violent.  It is a defamation, it is a lie and it is wrong.  It is basically bigotry and perpetuating an old myth.  So stop. 

[mr moose]

33 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 when I talk about forced treatment I mean either treating fetuses/babies, ...  But I think having autism contributes to the factors which causes people to become school shooters, or violent potentially violent in general. Things like troubled upbringing and being bullied.

 

Yes, I am going to harp on about this,  what you have essentially said here is that because autistic's get bullied and become angry we should abort them before it happens.

 

Is that not victim blaming in its most absolute abhorrent state?   You are a disgrace!

[Guest]

13 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Experimentation for this "cure" isn't happening at all. It hasn't even been proposed as a hypothetical yet - just musings of possible applications in the future. I will not comment on other things that aren't directly related to this device and it's possible usage.

 

Maybe you should re-read what Elon Musk has said....

 

Quote

This year, Neuralink has been more vocal: It published a white paper in July about its design for a brain chip, and Musk excitedly announced that the company had begun testing on monkeys.

You also should note this is a derivative technology based on previous human testing, and testing on children. You could research some of the team currently working for Neuralink and see their history, the previous "clinics" they have worked in offering so called cures. The information is all freely available. 

[Bombastinator]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, and like I have explained several times is that when I talk about forced treatment I mean either treating fetuses/babies, or the ones who are so far on the end of the autism spectrum that they can't work or function in society. The "45 year old with a full time carer" that @dalekphalm mentioned.

I am not sure it should be left up to those two groups of people to decide if they should get treated or not.

 

Children already don't get to decide if they get treated or what they are allowed/disallowed to do, so why should they in this case?

The adult example is similar too. Chances are people on the far end of the spectrum get decisions made for them all the time (by their caregiver or guardian), because they are seen as unfit to make their own decisions too. So why should they be in charged for whether or not they should be treated?

 

That's my reasoning.

 

 

 

 

All the statements I have made which references such things are backed up by science.

Victims of violence is still "involved in violence", which is what I said. One explanation I gave for this is that they might not pick up on social ques which can lead to fights. Say the wrong thing to the wrong person at school and yes, you will get punched. It's not directly the autistic person's fault, but at the same time facts are facts. Without autism the fight would probably never have happened (again, the statistics show this).

 

I also said that another explanation, which is what your links you posted also talks about, is that while autism might not be the primary reason for these people being violent, it might be an indirect cause.

Autism lead to troubled upbringing, which can lead to violent tendencies, which leads to violence.

A -> B -> C.

A does not directly cause C, but it is an aspect that greatly increases the risk of B, which is directly linked to C.

I mean, why else do you think autistic people are so over-represented in school shooters?

I am not sure I ever posted the link, but one of the studies I have cited says that 8% of the perpetrators at school shootings were diagnosed with autism, with another ~20% not being diagnosed but potentially had autism. I don't think that's a coincidence.

And just to be clear, I am not saying "autism = violent school shooter". School shooters are still a minority. But I think having autism contributes to the factors which causes people to become school shooters, or violent potentially violent in general. Things like troubled upbringing and being bullied. Those things are pretty well documented to breed violence in people, and it's pretty well documented that autistic people are often bullied and have troubled upbringings. Correct?

 

 

 

That's indeed a major concern. Just curing and then leaving them to themselves would probably not all of a sudden make them completely independent. That's why I later suggested that maybe we should only treat children so that they do not end up in that situation to begin with?

Or maybe it would be possible for some of the cured people to actually adapt and get a normal life? Or maybe they don't fully adapt but they get better lives?

 

 

If it seems like I have changed my arguments a lot throughout the thread it's because I don't think I have a perfect solution and rather spitball out ideas that might work, and also because people have thrown a ton of hypothetical scenarios at me and strawman me like crazy and then the entire conversation devolves to only be about that specific example, such as:

"Maybe we should only treat children with autism so they don't have issues to begin with and their personalities doesn't dramatically change all of a sudden? Assuming we had a perfect cure of course."

"That's like what they do on Island with down's syndrome children. They have almost eradicated Downs syndrome in that country! It's just like what the Nazis did to the Jews during WW2!"

"I don't see how eradicating a serious illness is a bad thing. I don't think abortion is the good way to do it but at Island it's the best we got right now. I would rather see a cure to treat people though."

"So you're okay with aborting autistic children! Stop being such a Hitler! You just said you think abortion is a cure for autism you fucking fascist!"

Re: groups

its the level at which you want to take decisions away from people that is so disturbing I think.  The ones that can’t make decisions for themselves are fairly moot I think.  They were never really in it from the beginning.  

 

re: violence

so subject to violence is as bad as violent for you.  That’s some hardcore victim blaming there.  This puts basically ever minority and under empowered group ever in the crosshairs. Anyone “mouthy”. The classic “they made me hit em” argument.

I don’t know if this argument was used against such groups as women seeking the right to vote in the 19th century but it wouldn’t surprise me.

It’s different than the ‘magic pill’ argument but it’s just as bad.  In a different way, but equally false.  New ‘magic pill’ I guess.
 

re: mass murder gun violence.

you say something and then say you didn’t say it.  You then point out that the retraction is because they are victims of violence rather than actually violent which you previously said was the same thing.  Internally inconsistent. I’m not sure if this is merely a timeline documentation of you making a statement and thinking better about it, or attempting to make a statement you know is false and then attempting to nullify obvious examples that it is false.

 

complaints about people disagreeing with you:

starts with a statement that this is a documentation of opinion over time rather than a statement.  Except that the opinions people took exception with don’t seem to have changed.  Changing an angle of attack for an argument isn’t changing an argument it’s changing methodology for the same argument.

The term “straw man” seems to be taking the place for “that time I used the ‘magic pill’ argument and no one bought it”.  You seem to be the one with a history of throwing hypotheticals which were refuted by things that happened rather than the reverse.  You do something, stop doing it, and then claim that the complaints that were leveled at you for doing it were never appropriate because you aren’t doing it at this time.

you take exception to people taking exception to parts of what you said rather than the wholistic concept.  This might make sense of the wholistic concept changed.  That doesn’t seem to have happened though.  You did rephrase it several times. The base statement seems to remain the same though.

The newest iteration of what seems to be the exact same argument is at the top of your statement.  The change seems to be that you are not completing the conclusion directly, but hiding it behind a rather vague reference to a statement by another poster that is difficult to look up.

 

The peg remains square.  The hole remains round.  Repeatedly ramming it in from different directions does not change the nature of the peg.

This is the Rush Limbaugh method of argument.  He did this too.  It’s not totally ineffective.  His secret was wear. And a huge number of pegs.  It took him 30 years, but he did manage to make the hole squarer in the eyes of some.  Enough to take the electoral vote.  The hole was still round at the very back though and now society is paying the price.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Yes, I am going to harp on about this,  what you have essentially said here is that because autistic's get bullied and become angry we should abort them before it happens.

When you say "abort" do you mean let mothers expecting children to have abortions? Because that's not what I think should happen. In the best of worlds I would say we had a "magical pill" which just cured the autism without any side effects. That's what I have been talking about all throughout the thread.

 

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Is that not victim blaming in its most absolute abhorrent state?   You are a disgrace!

I feel like you are not reading what I say and is just getting angry.

Is it victim blaming? Maybe a bit, but at the same time I see it as a genuine solution, one that (assuming we had this magical cure) would be far easier than the other solution, which is get rid of bullying and make sure everyone has a great childhood without any problems. That solution seems even more miraculous than finding a cure for autism.

I don't really understand which part of my statement and train of thought you disagree with. At which point do you start disagreeing with me?

1) Autistic children has a higher risk of getting bullied than non-autistic children.

2) Autistic children often have a more difficult childhood than non-autistic children, partially or maybe even primarily because off getting bullied.

3) Bullying and difficult childhood is a common theme with violent people, and especially school shooters.

4) Autistic people report a lower life satisfaction than non-autistic people. They also report more traumatic life experiences.

5) The percentage of school shooters who has autism is significantly higher than the general percentage of people with autism.

6) To me, this indicates that autism often leads to a more troubled childhood, which in turn increases the risk of violent behavior as well as dramatic actions like school shootings. Therefore, curing people with autism will lead to fewer troubled childhoods which will lead to fewer things like school shootings.

 

I think it's "victim blaming" the same way telling a drunk woman to not walk through a shady ghetto all alone at night. Does she deserve to be attacked if she walks through there? Of course not, but at the same time not walking there is the most practical solution we got to minimize the risk. Same deal here. It would be fantastic is everyone had a great childhood, but at it stands autism greatly increase the likelihood that you will have traumatic experiences and the end result is that autistic people are less satisfied with their lives (according to studies and surveys).

 

Personally, I would want my child to have as good of a childhood and life as possible, and according to the studies an autistic person has far greater risk of having a bad life than a non-autistic person.

In order to maximize the chance of having a good childhood, and minimize the risk of having a bad one, curing autism is a practical solution (assuming we had a cure for it).

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

When you say "abort" do you mean let mothers expecting children to have abortions? Because that's not what I think should happen. In the best of worlds I would say we had a "magical pill" which just cured the autism without any side effects. That's what I have been talking about all throughout the thread.

 

 

I feel like you are not reading what I say and is just getting angry.

Is it victim blaming? Maybe a bit, but at the same time I see it as a genuine solution, one that (assuming we had this magical cure) would be far easier than the other solution, which is get rid of bullying and make sure everyone has a great childhood without any problems. That solution seems even more miraculous than finding a cure for autism.

I don't really understand which part of my statement and train of thought you disagree with. At which point do you start disagreeing with me?

1) Autistic children has a higher risk of getting bullied than non-autistic children.

2) Autistic children often have a more difficult childhood than non-autistic children, partially or maybe even primarily because off getting bullied.

3) Bullying and difficult childhood is a common theme with violent people, and especially school shooters.

4) Autistic people report a lower life satisfaction than non-autistic people. They also report more traumatic life experiences.

5) The percentage of school shooters who has autism is significantly higher than the general percentage of people with autism.

6) To me, this indicates that autism often leads to a more troubled childhood, which in turn increases the risk of violent behavior as well as dramatic actions like school shootings. Therefore, curing people with autism will lead to fewer troubled childhoods which will lead to fewer things like school shootings.

 

I think it's "victim blaming" the same way telling a drunk woman to not walk through a shady ghetto all alone at night. Does she deserve to be attacked if she walks through there? Of course not, but at the same time not walking there is the most practical solution we got to minimize the risk. Same deal here. It would be fantastic is everyone had a great childhood, but at it stands autism greatly increase the likelihood that you will have traumatic experiences and the end result is that autistic people are less satisfied with their lives (according to studies and surveys).

 

Personally, I would want my child to have as good of a childhood and life as possible, and according to the studies an autistic person has far greater risk of having a bad life than a non-autistic person.

In order to maximize the chance of having a good childhood, and minimize the risk of having a bad one, curing autism is a practical solution (assuming we had a cure for it).

..and the magic pill theory is back.  Why am I not surprised it didn’t actually go anywhere?  You did seem to succeed in making @mr moose angry.  Was that the intent?

[GeekYuuki]

The guy is just straight out insane. Smart, but incredibly insane.

 

He's like if Tony Stark had bipolar. I'm serious. There's some issue with him.

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, GeekYuuki said:

The guy is just straight out insane. Smart, but incredibly insane.

 

He's like if Tony Stark had bipolar. I'm serious. There's some issue with him.

To which him do you refer?  I’m counting at least four atm.

 

Musk? (To return the thread to its actual purpose)  I’m not sure he’s insane.  Often enthusiastic to the point of hyperbole perhaps.

[GeekYuuki]

18 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

To which him do you refer?  I’m counting at least four atm.

 

Musk? (To return the thread to its actual purpose)  I’m not sure he’s insane.  Often enthusiastic to the point of hyperbole perhaps.

 

Musk, yeah. He's incredibly smart but makes dumb statements.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, GeekYuuki said:

 

Musk, yeah. He's incredibly smart but makes dumb statements.

I think he has a problem with the difference between “this could be” and “this will be”.  He’s had an amazing record of turning “could” into “will” though.  The problem he has now is if he goes to “could” from “will” “could” turns into “probably won’t” which is a lousy way to sell something, so he’s gotten himself stuck.

[LAwLz]

59 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

its the level at which you want to take decisions away from people that is so disturbing I think.  The ones that can’t make decisions for themselves are fairly moot I think.  They were never really in it from the beginning.  

What do you mean by "the ones that can't make decisions for themselves are fairly moot"?

It's those people I think would need to be forced to be cursed. Either by the state (like we have with vaccines today) or by their guardians/parents (which also happens today).

 

Again, I have only advocated for forced cures for these two groups throughout this thread:

1) The group of autistic people who are so far on the spectrum that they do not function in society. The ones mr moose said were something along the lines of "so autistic they were diagnosed way back". The ones dalekphalm described couldn't work and needed full time help from someone else. I don't think we're taking away choice from these people because they essentially can't make choices for themselves anyway. That's why they have personal assistants.

 

2) Newborn babies or fetuses, who already do not have any say in how they are treated because that is 100% the parents. We are not removing choice from these people either because they already don't have any say in things.

 

 

59 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

so subject to violence is as bad as violent for you.

No. I have never said that. I have never even said anything remotely similar to that. Stop straw manning.

Find me a quote where I have said this please. I am getting really, really tired of you constantly misconstruing everything I say just so that you can make me look bad.

 

What I have said is that autistic people are more involved in violence than non-autistic people, and that's bad because I wouldn't want my child to get beat up. Having autism = more likely to get bullied and beat up.

I have also said that autistic people are overrepresented in the category of school shooters, and my theory is that it's because they have been bullied and had other bad life experiences.

That's what I have said.

 

 

59 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

 This puts basically ever minority and under empowered group ever in the crosshairs. Anyone “mouthy”. The classic “they made me hit em” argument.

Well, yeah. Say the wrong thing at the wrong time or to the wrong person and you might get hit. That's life.

I am not saying that's right or justified but that's the way things are. And it happens to everyone, not just minorities or oppressed groups. There are plenty of straight white men who has been physically attacked for things they have said too.

I am not saying violence is justified. What I am trying to do is explain why it might happen and that it might be a good idea to remove things which might lead to violence.

 

 

59 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I don’t know if this argument was used against such groups as women seeking the right to vote in the 19th century but it wouldn’t surprise me.

It’s different than the ‘magic pill’ argument but it’s just as bad.  In a different way, but equally false.  New ‘magic pill’ I guess.

I don't understand what you mean. Can you please elaborate?

 

59 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

re: mass murder gun violence.

you say something and then say you didn’t say it.  You then point out that the retraction is because they are victims of violence rather than actually violent which you previously said was the same thing.  Internally inconsistent. I’m not sure if this is merely a timeline documentation of you making a statement and thinking better about it, or attempting to make a statement you know is false and then attempting to nullify obvious examples that it is false.

I am not following you here. I have never said victims of violence and perpetrator of violence are the same thing. You will not be able to find a quote of me saying anything remotely like that. What I have said is that violence breeds violence. Since autistic people are more likely to be victims of violence they are also at a greater risk of becoming violent. That would explain why school shooters are so often autistic people.

 

What do you mean by "internally inconsistent"?

 

 

59 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

starts with a statement that this is a documentation of opinion over time rather than a statement.  Except that the opinions people took exception with don’t seem to have changed.  Changing an angle of attack for an argument isn’t changing an argument it’s changing methodology for the same argument.

Again, I am having a hard time following you here. Could you please quote what I said instead of the type of writing you're doing right now? It might make it easier for me to follow you. It seems like you're referencing some specific sentence have made here but I am not sure which one.

 

59 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The term “straw man” seems to be taking the place for “that time I used the ‘magic pill’ argument and no one bought it”.  You seem to be the one with a history of throwing hypotheticals which were refuted by things that happened rather than the reverse.

Again I am not understanding you.

I use straw man correctly. I say something, and then you claim I said something else which is far easier to shoot down.

For example earlier I said violence breed violence, and your response to that was "so you're saying being a victim of violence is just as bad as being violent!", which is not at all what I said.

I would really appreciate if you could start quoting me because then it becomes really obvious to the rest of the people reading this thread what I have actually said.

 

When did I throw around hypotheticals that were refuted? When did I say the opposite was true? Again, I have no idea what you are referencing here.

 

 

59 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

You do something, stop doing it, and then claim that the complaints that were leveled at you for doing it were never appropriate because you aren’t doing it at this time.

you take exception to people taking exception to parts of what you said rather than the wholistic concept.  This might make sense of the wholistic concept changed.  That doesn’t seem to have happened though.  You did rephrase it several times. The base statement seems to remain the same though.

Wait a minute, you can't have it both ways.

First you say I do something, stop doing it and then complain that people called me out for something I stopped doing.

Then you say I just rephrase things and never change my arguments.

Which one is it? Do I flip flop around or do I stay consistent? A bit earlier you even said I never stopped talking about the things people were angry at me for saying.

I am really trying to understand you but I just don't get it.

 

 

 

59 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The newest iteration of what seems to be the exact same argument is at the top of your statement.  The change seems to be that you are not completing the conclusion directly, but hiding it behind a rather vague reference to a statement by another poster that is difficult to look up.

Well, yeah. I have never really changed my arguments. What has happened is that people got angry at me for saying some things and then I elaborated what I meant. I haven't "hidden my stance", I have explained how I came to the stance I have. I was more direct with it earlier but since people seemed to misunderstand me I elaborated more on my thought process. That's not "hiding" anything. It's explaining and elaborating.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

..and the magic pill theory is back.  Why am I not surprised it didn’t actually go anywhere?  You did seem to succeed in making @mr moose angry.  Was that the intent?

What do you mean by "the magic pill theory is back"?

I don't get it. What do you have against a hypothetical "magic cure with no side effects"? That is the dream goal of all medicinal advancements. This thread is about research that could lead to the a cure for autism. Am I not allowed to say "if this is successful then I would want things to be handled this way"?

 

No, my intent was not to make mr moose angry. My intent is to explain what I would like to see happen (a perfect cure is found), what I would like to see happen (not sure how I would like it handled, but I think forced treatment to certain people would be positive for everything), and why (increase life quality and beneficial to society).

[GeekYuuki]

21 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I think he has a problem with the difference between “this could be” and “this will be”.  He’s had an amazing record of turning “could” into “will” though.  The problem he has now is if he goes to “could” from “will” “could” turns into “probably won’t” which is a lousy way to sell something, so he’s gotten himself stuck.

It could also be a part of his persona, perhaps. Who knows.