Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Jonathan's Completely Dishonest Attack on My Latest Posts

Dear reader: Please go read Jon Mitchell's utterly dishonest attack on my two latest posts. It's titled Some neurodiversity potpurri.

First of all, I'd like to inform Jon that even though I've said this blog is pro-neurodiversity, I'm not a leader of neurodiversity proponents or anything of the sort. All my opinions are personal and should in no way be seen as opinions put forth by something called neurodiversity. It's very uncool to try to use what I say (or what other bloggers say for that matter) as a way to attack the neurodiversity philosophy as a whole.

Now, the most outrageous misrepresentation of what I said is the following:
I see that Joseph of the autism natural variation blog has decided based on one published report based on the statuses of only 19 people that adults with autism don't have problems with employment nor with marriage.

I could've predicted this was going to be Jon's response, and it's not the first time he's tried to misrepresent what I've said. I'll leave statistics for the end of the post. I want to discuss the misrepresentations first.

What I said about lack of employment is that (1) figures used in prior estimates appear to be exaggerated; (2) that it would seem adult autistics who live in private households across the UK are largely productive individuals who contribute to the economy in a manner similar to their non-autistic peers.

I never said autistic people don't have problems with employment. All I said is that autistics are largely employed. There's a big difference. The data can't tell me anything about specific problems autistic people have with employment, and I have no doubt there are a variety of problems.

I stated that there appear to be some differences in the employment rates of autistics and non-autistics, but the authors didn't find them statistically significant. This is what the authors said:
No significant variation in rate of ASD by economic activity status was found.

That's a true statement. If you want to lash out at the authors for daring to say that, be my guest.

The misrepresentation of my claims about marriage is even more outrageous, since my post clearly said in bold that autistic people in the UK are apparently about half as likely to get married than non-autistic people.
In the past Joseph presented some statistic saying that 25% of autistics were employed. As far as I can tell he neglects to mention any source or reference or link for this statistic in any post on his blog.

OK, that one is my fault. I failed to cite a reference in the old post, and I don't even remember the exact reference. I'm usually careful about that sort of thing. If you're interested, Howlin et al. (2004) reports that almost one third of the adult autistics in that study had some form of employment. Szatmari et al. (1989), a follow-up of adults without intellectual disability, reports a rate of employment of 50%.
So Joseph seems to imply that autistic persons are making just as much money as an NT.

I never talked about salaries, and if you made inferences from my post in regards to salaries, that's really not my fault. The study does have data on salaries. The summary of the findings was the following.
While the likelihood of having ASD appeared to increase among men as household income decreased, this was not significant (when analysis was run using household income
grouped into tertiles).

In this case, again, there might have been some differences, and if you look at the numbers in Table 2.3 it would be difficult to deny that autistics are making somewhat less money than non-autistics. But in a statistical sense, the numbers cannot tell us for sure that there's a difference.
So again, we have ND trivialization of an autistics inability to get married or make a living.

To Jon Mitchell, any figures and facts that don't agree with his personal views and experiences with autism constitute "trivialization." Reality doesn't exactly matter if it doesn't jive with what he sees as the necessity of continuing to have a grim worldview.

The Stats

Jon doesn't like the stats of the study because:
The authors of the reports extrapolated this number 19 to the greater population claiming that 1% of adults in the UK in private households have autism. However this was just a guess based on mathematical projections.

For starters, saying that the result is a "guess" is clearly an inaccurate characterization, and I've explained this previously. Many of the 19 autistic people identified must have been assigned a probability of selection that is less than 1.0 in phase 1. For example, if 10 of the 19 autistic people had been assigned a probability of 0.25, then clearly there must have been about 40 autistic people in the original group who were assigned a probability of 0.25. This is a probabilistically sound projection, not a "guess." (It's a bit more complicated than I explained, because there's also some weighing due to participation refusal based on some household variables.)

Now, no study can prove a negative, i.e. that there's absolutely no difference between the characteristics of two groups (this is the "null hypothesis.") All you can say is that you found the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Of course, some studies are better able to rule out small differences as opposed to big differences, with statistical confidence.

It does matter that only 19 autistic people were found, but what mostly matters is the overall sample size. In Table 3.6 they indicate the confidence interval for ASD prevalence is 0.5% to 2.0%. They list the sample size as 2854 and the "weighed" sample size as 7358.

There are prevalence studies smaller than this, and existing data on the characteristics of autistic adults are usually based on comparable or smaller samples of autistic people.

The confidence interval is actually what you would get if you had found 7 autistic people out of 700 in a standard sampling (and I have some thoughts about implications of this, but I won't go into them here.)

Prevalence of ASD among adults who are employed was 0.9%. The confidence interval would be roughly equivalent to what you'd get if you had found 5 autistics out of 555 people, or 0.4% to 2.1%. (About 75% of all adults are employed in the UK.)

So on the one hand you have a prevalence of [0.5% - 2.0%] and on the other hand you have a prevalence of [0.4% - 2.1%]. Is there a difference? We just can't say there is.

80 comments:

  1. I can't answer your poll: I'm neither single nor married.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Norah: Sorry. Cohabitating? In that case, use "married." That's basically the same break-up of categories in the NHS study.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here's an easier way to look at the stats...

    Suppose you select 19 autistic people at random, and there's no selection bias. You find that 12 of the 19 (63%) are employed.

    Using a confidence interval calculator it turns out that the 95% CI is 41% to 81%.

    So while 75% of non-autistics are employed, anywhere from 41% to 81% of autistics are employed.

    Worst case, the relative likelihood that an autistic person is employed is 0.55, compared to a non-autistic person. The most probable relative likelihood is still 0.84.

    So a group size of 19 is not as bad as Jon thinks. It depends on what sort of difference you're trying to find. Certainly, if you're trying to determine differences in some outcome that only occurs in 1% of the population, there's no chance using group sizes of 13 or 3 or 3+4 is going to work at all. You'd have to fudge your data to make that work :)

    (Disclaimer # 1: It's not my intent to "trivialize" with the figures above. I simply performed some calculations.)

    (Disclaimer # 2: I'm not saying that 12 of the 19 autistic people were actually employed. Reality is a bit more complicated since the 19 autistics had to have been "more autistic" than the group of all autistics from the phase 1 population.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're not alone, Joseph. He has also been writing about me here. He has not only called me a "teenage ingenue," but he has said that I was comparing him to a Jew helping the Nazis to kill other Jews. This is a lie. My analogy of him was to a Jew who thinks that the Nazis are his friends and that they were only trying to help the Jewish population.
    Sorry about you being the victim of his libeling, but your writing is so good that I feel that I am in good company. Here's the url to my blog: http://www.generationyidealism.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not to pick on you or anything, Joseph, but what's the point of wasting your time responding to his nonsense? You know he craves attention, and when you write a post like this, you're just giving him what he wants.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @abfh: That's why I never mention Jonathan Mitchell in any of my blog posts. It was my giving him attention in the first place that led to his repeatedly mentioning me as "the teenage ingenue" who supports neurodiversity because she doesn't know better. That and because it causes a lot of stress to be in a constant war of insults with anyone. Not to mention that it's pointless to do it over the Internet to someone who is hundreds of miles away from you and who you'll probably never meet anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not to pick on you or anything, Joseph, but what's the point of wasting your time responding to his nonsense? You know he craves attention, and when you write a post like this, you're just giving him what he wants.

    You're probably right. I let him get to me, and in the process I elevated him to the level of a worthy opponent.

    Oh well. I hope the post serves as documentation of Jon's MO.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Please go read Jon Mitchell's utterly dishonest attack on my two latest posts."

    I went. I nearly vomited! The guy's a arse... comes out with nothing by shit and wind... and it never smells good!

    (quoting the arse): "I see that Joseph of the autism natural variation blog has decided based on one published report based on the statuses of only 19 people that adults with autism don't have problems with employment nor with marriage."

    He would come up with this lovely straw man thing, wouldn't he? I can't believe that he's got even a mediocre degree if he's got that much difficulty in actually reading and understanding what people say! Your post did not say what the arse said it did.

    "Jon doesn't like the stats of the study because: 'The authors of the reports extrapolated this number 19 to the greater population claiming that 1% of adults in the UK in private households have autism. However this was just a guess based on mathematical projections.'"

    Actually, he doesn't like the stats because he doesn't understand stats well enough to be able to understand those particular statistics.

    Joseph said: "In any case, it would seem that adult autistics who live in private households across the UK are largely productive individuals who contribute to the economy in a manner similar to their non-autistic peers."

    And then the arse said: "So Joseph seems to imply that autistic persons are making just as much money as an NT."

    Um... what Joseph said does not even come close to what the arse says it implies. So the inference is totally invalid.

    As is much if not all of what the arse actually says.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dr. Steinberg11/05/2009 9:07 AM

    You should know by now that Jonathan has a "comprehension deficit", and simply can't take on any new information unless it's drummed into his head by the only authority figure he accepts as having any veracity at all, his mother! Undoubtedly, his life-long dependence on her, psychologically, emotionally, financially, has rendered him incapable of thinking for himself, and so he has become only an extension of her. It's rare to see a grown man remain such a dependent "patsy", but this appears to be the combination of his autism and his inability to cut the cord with his domineering mother. A very sad case, one I'm glad I don't have to deal with.

    Reinhard Q. Steinberg, MD, PhD, FRSA

    ReplyDelete
  10. Benjamin Kornblatt, MSW11/05/2009 10:25 AM

    Again, Herr Doktor, you seem to be dancing around what is clearly an Oedipal Complex. I don't know why you should describe it so completely, yet fail to name it. Since he is not your patient, no purpose is served by drawing it out, keeping him in suspense until you deign to give him an inkling as to what his problem is. Because of the grave danger he presents to his mother, I think that if something should happen, I might hold you responsible, and make a report.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Dr. Steinberg: I don't really think it can be blamed on his mother. He sees what he wants to see. If he knows the speaker is a proponent of neurodiversity, he expects and wants to see deliberate distortions of information, denial of human rights, and maliciousness. Ergo, that is what he sees, even if it's clearly otherwise. If the speaker is pro-cure, then he sees that person as nothing but a hero. For example, he goes on and on about abfh wanting to kill all autistics who are pro-cure and turn them into cat food. If he actually read the post in question in context, he would understand that it is part of a sarcastic metaphor likening one group of "autistic uncle toms" to parrots. In contrast, when John Best was making death threats towards Ari Ne'eman, Mitchell defended him, saying that Best was just being sarcastic.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dr. Steinberg11/05/2009 1:03 PM

    Und how many degrees do you have, young lady? How many years of clinical work have you put in, and how many papers have you written in peer-reviewed publications?

    Please reread what I wrote previously, and understand that who Jonathan is today has been entirely moulded by his relationship with his mother, and he will see things just as she saw them long after she has passed on. He's practically internalized her entire personality, as he's barely ever known anyone else.

    And yes, I'm afraid Dr. Kornblatt is quite right, and I recall that he pointed out months ago, on another blog, that he likely both resents her domination, and at the same time, harbours an unnatural desire to "possess" her, which would indeed, pose a distinct threat to her. I can only hope that he lives somewhere far away from her, but I really doubt it. A dependent does not move away.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Dr. Steinberg: I have no doubt you have many years of experience in your field, and so forth. I'm not knowledgeable in it myself one way or another.

    So maybe you can clarify something for us. Is this Freudian Oedipus Complex hypothesis scientific?

    I'm open to any evidence you might provide, other than quotes by Freud, case reports, non-controlled observations, expert opinion, etc.

    I'm actually not familiar with the literature in this field, but I couldn't locate any case-control studies in Google Scholar that would demonstrate Oedipus Complex statistically.

    I see there's some talk of a study that looked at facial characteristics of partners vs. opposite-sex parent. But the study was apparently retracted, and is considered possibly fraudulent.

    What else is there that could convince someone like me that this is science?

    Additionally, what is the provenance of the hypothesis, other than "Freud dreamed it up?" Scientific hypotheses normally have clear provenance, unlike, say, astrology.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I am the parent of a classically autistic boy, and I'm on the spectrum myself. The science of autism is my main area of interest, but on occasion I will comment on other scientific topics."

    What else do you besides autism research? Do you have any REAL hobbies? WTF!!! Everything in your life involves autism!

    I guess you don't feel good enough about yourself, and you lack common sense over the fact that 19 autistics on the spectrum (some of which may not be diagnosed) on the INTERNET claim they are employed when you don't even know how to read people.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "when John Best was making death threats towards Ari Ne'eman, Mitchell defended him, saying that Best was just being sarcastic."

    Which means that Mitchell is exactly the same sort of shit that Best is... I expect that this is one of those "oh Dah!" things....

    To me, atleast, it's pretty bleeding obvious....

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jedi Shite said:

    "What else do you besides autism research? Do you have any REAL hobbies? WTF!!! Everything in your life involves autism!

    I guess you don't feel good enough about yourself, and you lack common sense over the fact that 19 autistics on the spectrum (some of which may not be diagnosed) on the INTERNET claim they are employed when you don't even know how to read people."


    Jedi Shite's profile link said: "The Blogger Profile you requested cannot be displayed. Many Blogger users have not yet elected to publicly share their Profile."

    Ummmm... Jedi Shite... the day you say who the fuck you are... that'll be the day you get any creedence here, you dull tosser!

    ReplyDelete
  17. I still wonder why those who made that study neglected to include autistic adults living in institutions in their figures, despite all of their sophisticated statistical techniques. I wonder who Dr. Steinberg and Kornblatt really are, and why they're so eager to give diagnoses and professional judgments in such a setting as this.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't know much about psychiatry, Freudian or otherwise, but it sounds like what those Docs said about Jon-boy is true. It all fits what we know about him. Is there a "Mama's Boy" diagnosis?

    ReplyDelete
  19. They didn't count me.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJWwuGNXUJA

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Ummmm... Jedi Shite... the day you say who the fuck you are... that'll be the day you get any creedence here, you dull tosser!"

    Credence, not creedence, dipshit (most people would have figured out what you meant, but I had to look up what you were trying to say in the dictionary)!

    It's people like you who feel like you've never been given credence throughout your entire life, so that's why you resort to spending time blogging about how wonderful autism can be! I don't own a blog for that reason, and I'm actually working hard to improve myself and get the help I need through a speech-language pathologist who knows more than a psychologist, unlike someone such as yourself who should be capable enough to realize this (and I know it's not a cure obviously)! God, is it really that hard for you to problem solve?

    Oh, and here's some advice to an educational psychologist:

    It's easy for you to get involved with your profession since you must have dealt with at least a dozen of them and analyzed yourself your entire life since knowing about your ASD. Whatever false advice and B.S. therapy you were given is whatever you project onto others here and other autism blogs.

    If I were you, I'd get yer arse off the computer and see a speech-language pathologist. Maybe you'll learn how to be professional to your clients and whoever you want to deal with online, including me.
    Your advice to your clients after going to speech therapy would then be more realistic and valid.

    ReplyDelete
  21. My bad, I meant you must have dealt with a dozen psychologists, not educational psychologist, but perhaps you've dealt with others within your profession.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Credence, not creedence, dipshit (most people would have figured out what you meant, but I had to look up what you were trying to say in the dictionary)!"

    Wow... he picks up on one fucking spelling/KEYing error and the JediShite thinks he's a fucking genius! My point still stands, though; you say nothing of who you are, I'm not buying into anything you say! Deal with it.

    JediShite: "that's why you resort to spending time blogging about how wonderful autism can be"

    Me? Obviously you're thick as pig shit. I have never blogged about how wonderful autism is!

    "Whatever false advice and B.S. therapy you were given is whatever you project onto others here and other autism blogs."

    What else you gonna do to demonstrate how little you have actually read of what I have actually said here?

    "If I were you, I'd get yer arse off the computer and see a speech-language pathologist."

    Actually, don't need one. And the correct form of the expression you attempted to use is: "If I were you, I'd get my arse off the computer... (etc)" ...

    As for my reaction to you... see if you speech therapist can help you understand this... what response do you expect from anyone on here when you make stupid statements like:

    "What else do you besides autism research? Do you have any REAL hobbies? WTF!!! Everything in your life involves autism!

    I guess you don't feel good enough about yourself, and you lack common sense over the fact that 19 autistics on the spectrum (some of which may not be diagnosed) on the INTERNET claim they are employed when you don't even know how to read people."

    May you need to do the fucking learning. Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think most people posting here have some serious personality problems and recommend that all of you see a therapist, especially you "David Andrews."

    And I do not believe that "Steinberg" and "Kornblatt" are real doctors. What respectable doctor/social worker would waste their time writing about an unkown blogger on an equally unknown blog? I also wonder who "Sadderbutwisergirl" truly is.

    I've come to the conclusion that many people in these online debates on the Pro-Neurodiversity side are actually the same person; I can tell by the writing style and IP addresses.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I still wonder why those who made that study neglected to include autistic adults living in institutions in their figures, despite all of their sophisticated statistical techniques.

    According to the NAS, the NHS study is just one part of a much broader effort. Methodologically it makes sense to consider the private household and the "communal establishment" populations separately.

    I doubt the NHS is out to get you, Lurker.

    ReplyDelete
  25. What else do you besides autism research? Do you have any REAL hobbies? WTF!!! Everything in your life involves autism!

    I'm a computer scientist, but currently I work for the software industry (from home).

    I have "hobbies" that I don't consider work: software projects, analysis of data. I realize that's not a typical set of "hobbies" but I don't see anything wrong with that.

    Yes, autism is basically what my life involves, because I have an autistic son.

    I guess you don't feel good enough about yourself, and you lack common sense over the fact that 19 autistics on the spectrum (some of which may not be diagnosed) on the INTERNET claim they are employed when you don't even know how to read people.

    What gave you the idea the autistics located by the NHS study were from the internet? They are actually ADOS-diagnosed, general population autistics, personally interviewed by professionals.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I don't know much about psychiatry, Freudian or otherwise, but it sounds like what those Docs said about Jon-boy is true. It all fits what we know about him. Is there a "Mama's Boy" diagnosis?

    I'd also put forth a similar disclaimer to Clay's above, but I understand Freudian psychoanalysis has been pretty much replaced by other forms of psychotherapy in recent times; more scientific forms of psychotherapy, namely CBT.

    CBT apparently originates with RET or REBT, originally proposed by Dr. Albert Ellis.

    In a rational-emotive approach, it's not very relevant whether Jon is attracted to his mom or not. What matters is that he most likely has a number of false, irrational beliefs that cause much of his feelings of powerlessness, frustration and self-pity. Namely:

    - People have a right not to be disabled.
    - It's impossible for a disabled person to enjoy life.

    I'm kind of guessing about the specifics here, but there's no question Jon must have a number of similar beliefs that are simply false and self-defeating.

    It's possible a lot of those beliefs come from his mom, but that's simply an incidental historical fact.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I've come to the conclusion that many people in these online debates on the Pro-Neurodiversity side are actually the same person; I can tell by the writing style and IP addresses.

    @Anon: I'm not going to address that, because it's so absurd it's impossible to falsify.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dr. Steinberg11/06/2009 8:50 AM

    Joseph said:
    "So maybe you can clarify something for us. Is this Freudian Oedipus Complex hypothesis scientific?"

    If you will notice, I didn't say anything about an "Oedipal Complex", it was that putz Kornblatt who did so. He really should know better, ve no longer refer to such things nowadays.

    However, I submit that everything I said about your Jonathan is true - he simply has never really known anyone else besides his mother, she is everything to him, he has internalized her personality, and would never disagree with her. I have no doubt that he still lives with her, because as I said, a dependent does not move away.

    He doesn't believe a thing anyone else tells him, before first comparing it to what he has learned from her. His style of criticism must be exactly the same as hers, because he has not learned any other way.

    Sure, sure, Freud has been deposed, but in this instance, what he said was spot on.

    "What else is there that could convince someone like me that this is science?"

    If you want "concrete proof", you really must come see my townhouse in London, and my chateau on the Riviera, where I spend the winters. Freud has been very good to me.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If you want "concrete proof", you really must come see my townhouse in London, and my chateau on the Riviera, where I spend the winters. Freud has been very good to me.

    I have no doubt some chiropractors, astrologers and homeopaths could make the same exact argument, Dr. Steinberg.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Joseph, then I wonder when they're going to complete that broader effort, and why they released such an inchoate study. I don't see how there is a purpose to separately studying those living in different settings. I wonder about the intentions of any entity that refers to institutions so euphemistically as "communal establishments".

    Anon, I bet I could guess who that one person may really be.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dr. Steinberg11/06/2009 10:15 AM

    @Joseph,
    I note you did not dispute anything I said about your Jonathan. I will bring up again his "comprehension deficit", in that if you show him any fact, he discounts it, because it did not come from his guiding light, his mother. If it seems to run counter to anything he has learned from her, then he's on "attack mode", because *she* has never countenanced any "backtalk", and neither will he. You cannot dislodge his dislogical loop of looniness, he's spent all his life learning it. And that has nothing to do with Freud.

    As for your examples of chiropractors, etc., they are mere pikers, I can assure you. Getting ready to go to the Mediterranean now.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Joseph, then I wonder when they're going to complete that broader effort, and why they released such an inchoate study.

    @Lurker: I don't know. This is clearly a very expensive and difficult effort; the first of its kind. It could take years.

    I don't see how there is a purpose to separately studying those living in different settings.

    What matters is that the persons responsible for the different studies figured out that there's a purpose to it. For example, sampling households by postal code wouldn't work at all if some households are not really households.

    I wonder about the intentions of any entity that refers to institutions so euphemistically as "communal establishments".

    They do that for a reason. Not all non-private households are institutions, the way you might think of an institution. They might include prisons, for example. They might include institutions for the elderly.

    If they simply said "institutions" you might assume they are talking about institutions for the developmentally disabled.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "They do that for a reason. Not all non-private households are institutions, the way you might think of an institution. They might include prisons, for example. They might include institutions for the elderly." I can see how that is reasonable, but why wouldn't they just refer to all of what they didn't include as non-private households as you said? Also, I doubt that the category of communal establishments is the only other thing. What about the homeless?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I would certainly hope that whoever is in charge of the effort has thought of the homeless population.

    Communal Establishment is a terminology they apparently use in the UK: See this.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Which means that Mitchell is exactly the same sort of shit that Best is... I expect that this is one of those "oh Dah!" things...."

    You're being rather unfair to John. It's hard for him to face that all the disappointments of his life are due to his own limitations, and not a conspiracy to hold him down. Fantasies about being a super genius due to his skills at golf and gambling were once sufficient to keep him from getting too depressed, but when he kept encountering people with disabilities (autism, femaleness (which by his dim lights is a disability) who nevertheless were obviously smarter and more successful than him, something inside him snapped, and he needed to fantasize that he was a miracle worker, who could cure people of disagreeing with him by loving treatment with chemicals and torture (note that even in his deluded state he was unable to imagine actually convincing someone with reasoned argument). He'll explode out of sheer frustration shortly when the world continues to not be as he imagines it is. He deserves pity (from a safe distance) until he receives substantial therapy.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ Anonymous: LoL

    You're almost funny.

    Joseph: "I'm kind of guessing about the specifics here, but there's no question Jon must have a number of similar beliefs that are simply false and self-defeating."

    I think you're right. This is one of the things I trained up in (the other being personal construct counselling), and looking at what people say can give you a very good clue as to the types of thinking errors they make with regard to self-defeatingness of content.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @ the second Anonymous ....

    Hmm... they both do seem to be actually begging for our pity, don't they? Problem is... if we actually give it, that will reinforce their obnoxious/imbecilic behaviour as if we were actually giving them Smarties for doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "I am the parent of a classically autistic boy, and I'm on the spectrum myself."

    In the future, will you clarify by stating you are self diagnosed? I think otherwise, you give the reader the impression that you are diagnosed.

    By the way, I give no weight to this study, at all.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @K: I've clarified that a few times already, and I also explained that it's not necessary for you or anyone else to believe it.

    I recall you already gave weight to the NHS study in a thread over at LB/RB, but I guess you've changed your mind. Not that it matters in the least whether you give weight to a study or not, especially when you don't provide a rationale as to why you reject it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "I've clarified that a few times already, and I also explained that it's not necessary for you or anyone else to believe it."

    New readers can come to false conclusions. Its best to always reference when you describe yourself as autistic that you are self diagnosed. Best to keep things clear I think.

    I give it the same weight you gave my support group, which was a larger sample than this group.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I've never seen a profile with a long apologetic disclaimer. "I'm autistic, and here's how I know, but..."

    I don't think I ever commented on your support group video. Everyone there was a bit more extroverted and more comfortable speaking in public than I would've expected actually. A lot of them seemed kind of stereotypical. One was an engineer. Another guy said he identified with "Data" from Star Trek.

    Anyway, the size of the group doesn't matter too much if it's not representative. How do we know if this group is representative of all autistics from the general population, rich and poor, diagnosed and (so far) undiagnosed, etc.?

    The NHS study, on the other hand, is essentially a whole population prevalence study that locates all ADOS-diagnosable autistics, even those who were previously undiagnosed. In principle, the autistic population it locates is representative of autistics living in private households, except perhaps for some minor selectivity due to participation refusal, which the authors do try to control for in certain ways.

    A video is not data, and if you're suggesting it's data, I think you're wrong. There are no objective observations or statistics we can derive from that video.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Joseph, it comes down to if it paints a "pretty picture" or whether you believe something. Your quick to make connections from an SBC lead "study", but for real autistic experience, you simply dismiss it. This is why I think its important that you not misrepresent yourself or imply to the reader that you are autistic (with a formal diagnosis).

    You can dismiss autistics like those in that support group and come up with all sorts of shit to dismiss their representation, because it doesn't fit your shiney aspie interests.

    By the way, do you still care to make judgements on my son like you have in the past and make online diagnosis of him?

    You cheapen the lives of people that are in that support group because you don't want to associate yourself with people like "them". Plain and simple and a casual reader of ND blogs can see that they don't really give a shit about about those of us who have problems. You want to gloss over and hide us like we were some sort of attic children.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Joseph, it comes down to if it paints a "pretty picture" or whether you believe something.

    @K: I didn't follow that at all. Whether a study is informative comes down to methodology, not whether it confirms your beliefs, or whether it's perceived as painting a "pretty picture."

    but for real autistic experience, you simply dismiss it.

    Again, I did not dismiss anything. I don't know what exactly I'm supposed to see in that video that I can dismiss.

    Additionally, a video like that cannot be treated as data. It needs to be taken for what it is: a video of autistic people who may or may not be representative of all autistic people.

    This is why I think its important that you not misrepresent yourself or imply to the reader that you are autistic (with a formal diagnosis).

    The assertions I make should stand on their own merit. My neurology has no bearing on the validity of anything I say. Your argument amounts to nothing but a genetic fallacy.

    I know that ever since you got your diagnosis in writing (when was that? 2, 3 years ago?) you think you're better than autistics who either don't or can't have their diagnoses in writing. But what bearing does this have on any arguments? Were your own arguments completely invalid 2 or 3 years ago before you got a formal diagnosis? Were you not autistic then?

    it doesn't fit your shiney aspie interests.

    What exactly is the basis of this assertion?

    By the way, do you still care to make judgements on my son like you have in the past and make online diagnosis of him?

    I never did any such thing, and I already made that clear. You tend to read things between the lines that simply aren't there. You also don't seem to have any trouble undiagnosing people over the internet yourself, based on very little information.

    You cheapen the lives of people that are in that support group because you don't want to associate yourself with people like "them".

    And you keep making assertions that are simply false and offensive.

    @Kent: Produce evidence that I said I don't want to associate myself with people like "them" or you're banned from the blog permanently.

    ReplyDelete
  44. BTW, how is it possible that I have "shiny aspie" interests, when I stated above that the reason I'm interested in autism is my son, whom I've described as "classically autistic" in my profile? My son is 8, almost entirely non-verbal, very much disabled.

    That, on its face, clearly makes no sense. It's simply another attempt by Kent to try to offend and discredit people.

    Really, if not for my son, I wouldn't even be here. Autism would simply be something I sometimes wondered about because of an article I read in 1998 that was kind of like a bucket of cold water. I might never have taken an interest in autism science or autism philosophies, I'm pretty sure.

    I bet it's a similar situation for Kent, though. If not for his son, who knows if he'd be here flaunting his formal diagnosis now.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Wow... he picks up on one fucking spelling/KEYing error and the JediShite thinks he's a fucking genius! My point still stands, though; you say nothing of who you are, I'm not buying into anything you say! Deal with it."

    So why do you buy into anything autistic people from ND say if you don't actually know them?

    "Me? Obviously you're thick as pig shit. I have never blogged about how wonderful autism is!"

    Then why are you on ND's side? So what if you didn't say how wonderful or beautiful autism is in your blog? It's easy for anybody to infer from what you've probably written that you feel this way, but if you claim you've never blogged this, that means you've just been caught red-handed and you hate autism in reality.

    "What else you gonna do to demonstrate how little you have actually read of what I have actually said here?"

    I don't even have to read anything you write. You're still a part of Neurodiversity. That's like asking someone what one is gonna do to demonstrate what someone with mild mental retardation is like when that individual doesn't have a close friend with that condition? Does he/she have to have evidence? In your logic, the answer is yes.

    "If I were you, I'd get yer arse off the computer and see a speech-language pathologist."

    Actually, don't need one. And the correct form of the expression you attempted to use is: "If I were you, I'd get my arse off the computer... (etc)" ...

    So I made a grammatical mistake over an expression! That's only because there's a subject and predicate, and by the time I reach the predicate part when speaking or typing, I feel like I've forgotten the subject which makes me feel like I'm telling myself to get off the computer. Dammit, it looks like I created a self-fulfilling prophecy! At least that's not as bad as your grammatical error, yet my error made a bigger difference for making me look like the fool. At least I'm admitting it. Of course if I blame it on my Mixed Expressive-Receptive Language Disorder due to my autism, you'll tell me it's baloney, but it's perfectly okay for you to abuse whatever mistakes I make. Of course anyone with a disorder will be in denial of the help they really need. Then again, if you don't need a speech pathologist, you must not truly be autistic. If you get offended over that statement, then you know I'm right and you're wrong.

    As for my reaction to you... see if you speech therapist can help you understand this... what response do you expect from anyone on here when you make stupid statements like:

    She already has explained this to me, but GEEEEEEEEEE.....I wonder how you knew that? Hmmm...oh, that's right! You know it's just a statement used to force someone like myself to stay out of people's business when I know damn well why someone like yourself stays involved with Neurodiversity. How typical! It's not like I have to listen to everything I'm told, but I still feel the therapist is helpful in many other ways. I guess you're fearful of losing your clients to speech pathologists! I could be making a difference, but it's people like you who prevent me from doing so.

    "May you need to do the fucking learning. Deal with it."

    I've been learning and working harder than most people all my life, but I'll never get reach the level I know I'm capable of all thanks to you and your dumbass Neurodiversity proponents who work hard to prevent a cure for autism from ever happening in my lifetime! I know you have the intelligence to know what's wrong with people on the autistic spectrum, but you keep it all a secret since you are content with the way you are. It's your fault you allow people to suffer! That is fucking unbelievable!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  46. "So what if you didn't say how wonderful or beautiful autism is in your blog?"

    I think you're not demonstrating a problem with language here at all: it's a problem with being told that you're wrong.

    "It's easy for anybody to infer from what you've probably written that you feel this way, but if you claim you've never blogged this, that means you've just been caught red-handed and you hate autism in reality."

    My italics... I don't know if you've ever studied logic and how inferences can logically be made, but not blogging about how wonderful autism is does not mean that someone obviously hates autism in reality.

    "I don't even have to read anything you write. You're still a part of Neurodiversity."

    Um... wrong. This is basic prejudice, and you've just admitted to it. You're not even thinking...

    "It's your fault you allow people to suffer!"

    Get a life. And get a fucking IQ too. I don't allow autistic people (or any others) to suffer. I work during the week so that people fucking don't suffer, you incredibly stupid person. And no... I'm not going to say that you don't have an expressive language issue going on. But the crap you're coming out with isn't about that; it's about your very clearly stated prejudice. Get the fuck over yourself.

    "I know you have the intelligence to know what's wrong with people on the autistic spectrum, but you keep it all a secret since you are content with the way you are"

    Talk about paranoid delusional thinking... shitting Jesus, you really do need help. That I don't deny. And I think that REBT or some other form of cognitively-oriented therapy would be useful to you. But... I am not going to start doing that for you on here. That's for you to see your therapist about. But as for your therapist actually helping you - I can't see many people here agreeing with you, and I'm not sure s/he is. Maybe you're learning a lot about the terms used in linguistics and so on, but... when you state things like "I don't even have to read anything you write ... You're still a part of Neurodiversity", that is not an expressive language problem: that is an issue of not thinking. And when you say that "I've been learning and working harder than most people all my life...", I'm not going to believe that you've done even half the work that I had to do, simply because you haven't shown any evidence here that you've learned anything at all, except maybe how to show how prejudiced you are.

    And this is going to guarantee you no friends around here:

    "At least that's not as bad as your grammatical error, yet my error made a bigger difference for making me look like the fool."

    You first picked on me about a spelling/keying error, and only after that did I mention anything about your grammatical error. If you don't want me to pick you up on your errors, then don't fucking pick me up on mine to take the piss out of me. Simple basis: you start it, I'll at least fucking carry it on. You really need to learn so much more about how to talk to people without pissing them off. And if your speech therapist isn't managing to help you with that (and s/he obviously isn't), then you need to be talking to someone who understands human behaviour better than a speech therapist does. And in case you're not able to pick up on this yourself, that is a very serious piece of advice I'm giving you.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "Really, if not for my son, I wouldn't even be here. Autism would simply be something I sometimes wondered about because of an article I read in 1998 that was kind of like a bucket of cold water. I might never have taken an interest in autism science or autism philosophies, I'm pretty sure.

    I bet it's a similar situation for Kent, though. If not for his son, who knows if he'd be here flaunting his formal diagnosis now."

    Joseph, I've had a different diagnosis before and have had a lifetime of struggle, which you have dismissed as being a fault of my own. I was initially diagnosed with mild mental retardation in childhood and had special education classes throughout elementary schools. This spring it will be 5 years, not 2 or 3.

    As I've written about before, what I see since being exposed to this diagnosis in formal groups of other formal diagnosed folks is a range of issues never discussed here (the Hub) or simply ignored.

    As far as evidence of you're not wanting to be associated with "them", its more of a feeling, a pathos that I see in your writing and responses. It is an opinion, based on being one of "them" and is legitimate evidence for my situation and my feelings about how you have responded to me whenever I bring up struggles, unemployment, homelessness etc.

    Instead of choosing to highlight struggles of autistic people and how this study, by SBC's lab and using a faulty instrument like the AQ, you could have chosen to highlight the needs of kids like mine and your son's, instead you chose to use it to continue the "shiney aspie pathos".

    You can certainly ban me. Its your blog. ND's have been banning autistics they don't agree with for awhile now.

    I think your doing a disservice to autistic people, even though you probably think you're doing some good.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Get a life. And get a fucking IQ too. "

    While not your comment, this is the pathos that exudes throughout the ND movement and what is turning me away from it as it becomes more clear this (ND) is more about shiney aspieism than it is about autistic people.

    Does David get a banning warning? or is it just me, the person vigorously defending the needs of autistics that struggle?

    ReplyDelete
  49. what I see since being exposed to this diagnosis in formal groups of other formal diagnosed folks is a range of issues never discussed here (the Hub) or simply ignored.

    Provide an example.

    Either way, I don't see why you expect the Hub to be something like a support group. It's not, and I don't think it should be.

    Instead of choosing to highlight struggles of autistic people and how this study, by SBC's lab and using a faulty instrument like the AQ, you could have chosen to highlight the needs of kids like mine and your son's, instead you chose to use it to continue the "shiney aspie pathos".

    I write about autism data and science that I find informative, perhaps unexpected. A lot of times that science has no bearing on my son's reality. I'm not one to dismiss facts simply because those facts are not applicable to personal situations.

    Why would it be good idea to tell a parent "your child will probably never work" when this is unlikely to be true for a good majority of autistic children diagnosed this year?

    There's such a thing as false hope, but there's also false despair. The correct balance is to have data that is accurate and current, and to have an idea as to who that data applies to. Dismissing data simply because it doesn't jive with your preconceptions is simply crank-like behavior.

    BTW, you're obviously not very familiar with the NHS study. SBC's lab probably does not have anywhere near the resources required for a study like this. The purpose of the study is to determine the needs of autistic adults across the UK, so for all your blah blah, I'm surprised that you so readily dismiss it.

    The list of authors is:

    Brugha T, McManus S, Meltzer H, Smith J, Scott FJ, Purdon S, Harris J, Bankart J

    The Autism Research Centre is mentioned last in the list of participating institutions.

    They don't even use the AQ-50 test for screening, which you say is a faulty instrument. It's actually a screening tool, and as screening tools go, I don't believe it has been shown to be horribly unreliable, but maybe you have information I do not.

    They use something new they call the AQ-20, which is sure to be much less reliable than the AQ-50. The methodology of the study is such that the reliability of the screening tools is not the most important thing, which demonstrates good planning. What matters is that the final group of 600+ was evaluated with the ADOS, a diagnostic instrument.

    As far as evidence of you're not wanting to be associated with "them", its more of a feeling, a pathos that I see in your writing and responses. It is an opinion, based on being one of "them" and is legitimate evidence for my situation and my feelings about how you have responded to me whenever I bring up struggles, unemployment, homelessness etc.

    In other words, you imagine people think certain things, you read between the lines, and then you assume those imaginings are real. You don't get pats on the back from us, our experiences are not exactly the same as yours, we don't have the same exact concerns and interests, and this in your mind means we've offended you or something.

    You probably even think I'm some wealthy white guy who lives in a great neighborhood somewhere in the US. You must think in person I'd come off sort of like a Stephen Shore-type of guy; confident, well-spoken. I mean, you have to be thinking something along those lines for you to pin the "shinny aspie" thing on me, and to think that I'm supposed to be surprised about something in the Asperger support group video you referred me to.

    To some extent it's interesting that I give that impression in writing. Nevertheless, it's extremely presumptuous and obnoxious to make those sorts of assumptions based solely on writing style.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Does David get a banning warning? or is it just me, the person vigorously defending the needs of autistics that struggle?

    No, he does not. While David runs his mouth a lot and is insulting to people, his behavior doesn't meet threshold for banning. He's not making up what could be considered untrue accusations and so forth. He basically confronts trolls.

    David has probably been told a number of times (in Hub blogs no less) that insulting people by means of insinuating they are intellectually disabled is ableist. David is a grown adult, and I'm sure he's perfectly capable of evaluating this observation.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Part 1

    "Why would it be good idea to tell a parent "your child will probably never work" when this is unlikely to be true for a good majority of autistic children diagnosed this year?"

    Well there is a strawman in there and faulty conclusions in the other part.

    First, I never said to tell a parent a child will probably never work. I do think however, that for parents like our children, work may never go beyond a workshop and to pretend otherwise is a lie to yourself and to others with children with classical autism. Typically, those with classic autism don't graduate from the public school system with a diploma, but with a certificate of completion. Try getting full, self sustaining employment with a certificate of completion. Rosey politics isn't going to change this reality. How do I know? Again, my support group which you dismiss consistently as being atypical. Nearly all with diagnosed AS and nearly all unemployed. Now if classic AS, formally diagnosed, have difficulties getting a job, those with classic and or non-verbal autism are going to have an awful time getting and maintaining employment that will provide a roof over their heads and food on their table. We should work to help this, not try to ignore it with faulty AQ studies done by a man that is there to promote the shiney aspie.

    "It's not, and I don't think it should be." The Hub is the furtherest thing from a support group. Its a group of the self diagnosed , claiming to be autistic. Its devotees' who have a fetish for autism and its parents hoping their children will be like one of the self diagnosed and devotees'. When a real autistic comes along, to speak about the problems in their lives, they are dismissed as atypical. They are banned. They are discriminated against. They are challenged. What they aren't given is understanding so situations could be improved. They are labeled miscontents, banned from "autism friendly conferences". The Hub is an illusion, built and sustained and its validity rests on "do-gooderism". Parents drugging their children, faux autistics, excuse me, self diagnosed autistics, feel free to castigate and disparage real autistics.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Part 2

    "You don't get pats on the back from us, our experiences are not exactly the same as yours, we don't have the same exact concerns and interests, and this in your mind means we've offended you or something."

    You don't get it do you Joseph? I don't look for validation from Al Jolsen type autistics. I don't look for validation from the self diagnosed like you and ABFH. You don't have the same concerns because your NOT AUTISTIC! You read something in 1998 or you had a pediatrician in the 1960's say to your parents you are autistic, even though you never needed any assistance that rose to the level to exclude you from a typical classroom. How dare you, as a self diagnosed try to exclude those of us who did get excluded, who did have the need for acommadations, who did need help and who still struggle to fit into any measure of employment or independent living. Do you not see how hurtful the self diagnosed and their rather life of "little struggle" as fellow Hub member Joel Smith claims on his blog? Do you think someone that claims to have struggled very little would anger me when I struggled and when my son struggles. Its as though we should be ashamed of that. We have no place, we aren't included in the diaspora of autism found on the HUB. Stop claiming your autistic! If it were important to you to be truthful, you wouldn't allow this deception to continue.

    "You probably even think I'm some wealthy white guy who lives in a great neighborhood somewhere in the US. You must think in person I'd come off sort of like a Stephen Shore-type of guy; confident, well-spoken. I mean, you have to be thinking something along those lines for you to pin the "shinny aspie" thing on me, and to think that I'm supposed to be surprised about something in the Asperger support group video you referred me to."

    I try not to think of you because you are living off my life and the lives of others by claiming to be one of those like me and my son. You are all for the shiney aspie, because frankly you have never lived a life of extreme exclusion, abuse and struggle. You have never experienced what I have otherwise I believe you would understand and realize what a dangerous "road" you are traveling here for real autistic people.

    "Nevertheless, it's extremely presumptuous and obnoxious to make those sorts of assumptions based solely on writing style."

    I take no issue with your writing style. I take issue with the content and the emphasis. In the end, if your child has what you classify as "classical autism", then you will realize that promoting a shiney aspie agenda is harmful to him. He will never live up to your standards of what is acceptable in autism and what isn't. You have clearly determined that those like me, those that struggle or need extensive help are atypical. If your son is like us, he will learn he is atypical from his father and that is not what I think you want to convey.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Kent said:
    "Its a group of the self diagnosed, claiming to be autistic."

    It's come down to, "I know you are, but what am I?" ;-)

    I'm not self-diagnosed, Kent. Got my Dx more than 10 years ago, and since then, the only difference is that I no longer drive myself crazy wondering wtf is "wrong" with me. I'm different, I accept that, and even accept that being different is going to put me on the outskirts of society, just as it has for countless other types of "differentness".

    I know you read my blog fairly regularly, so you know I've had my share of difficulties, in personal relationships, in maintaining employment, as I've had many jobs but few friends, and none currently. And that "currently" goes back to 1990.

    I'm really tired of this "more disabled than thou" game you're playing. Anyone can be "happy" if they choose to be, but they first need to accept what IS, their gifts as well as their limitations, and make the best of what they have.

    Tell that to your support group.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Clay, why do you always comment on when I talk about the self diagnosed? If your diagnosed, then its really not about you.

    Clay, tell me, how is your life like Sabine's? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyp97e_MWKI

    How about Jamey's? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPWL5yimhyg

    It really isn't about you or me. Its about those, like Jamey, like Sabine and like Shelley who are left behind by this so called ND movement of the self diagnosed. Its about how people like the one's above might need more help, more understanding and less shiney aspieism. I'm sorry if my vigorous defense of the interests of those like the above is considered "more disabled than thou". Its the truth and I don't much care what anyone says, or whether they want to compare their relative ease in life to individuals like those. It isn't about YOU.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Anyone can be "happy" if they choose to be, but they first need to accept what IS, their gifts as well as their limitations, and make the best of what they have."

    Really? I guess it depends on what level of happiness you mean. Tell me, how do the prisoners trapped at JRC choose to be happy? How about those in the state hospitals in your state? or the homeless in my support group? or kids like my son struggling to be counted amongst the human in a system that thinks he is nothing but a label? Should they just be happy for their situation? or are they just a bunch of whiner "more disabled than thou" types?

    Really, I don't understand why you would feel the need to constantly respond and take up for the self diagnosed when you could be advocating for the Sabine's, Jamey's etc. Unless......

    ReplyDelete
  56. Kent said: "Does David get a banning warning?" ... about this: "Get a life. And get a fucking IQ too."

    Sorry to tell you Kent, but... telling someone to get a life isn't nasty - it's just me telling a troll to stop trolling, and the IQ thing ... well, we ALL know that IQ in adulthood has less to do with life success than anything like attitudes and aptitudes.

    Joseph said: "David has probably been told a number of times (in Hub blogs no less) that insulting people by means of insinuating they are intellectually disabled is ableist."

    Indeed, Joseph. And much of what makes an adult IQ is in fact effort made during the test to achieve the best possible result for oneself. The very different testing needs of adults is in fact the reason why Wechsler developed the Belle-Vue test: adult needs were simply not being met by the child-oriented Stanford-Binet.

    Intellectual skills can be developed over time. Thinking skills are learnable... if not so, REBT and other cognitive therapies could not work and yield the results that they obviously do.

    In this sense, I am not being 'able-ist' in what I say to JediShite2 ... I'm just, as Joseph has clearly pointed out, "confronting a troll".

    Don't like it, Kent? Tough shit. You're a bit of a fucking troll yourself, from what I've seen; maybe that's why you don't like me tackling a fellow troll, no?

    I can't be arsed to go all gooey for you or JediShite2... same reasons as for Lurker... it reinforces trollish behaviour. Deal with it. Stop trolling Joseph's blog and have a reasoned discussion - and cite your fucking sources - or be treated like the fucking troll you give the impression of being!

    It's not just Joseph you're pissing off with that shite.

    ReplyDelete
  57. It's kind of exhausting discussing with Kent, because Kent seems to be arguing with someone from his imagination. What's the point of continuing to say "I never said that" and "I don't believe what you claim I do" over and over?

    In addition to what Clay said, I believe David has an official diagnosis as well, as does Larry, Dedj, Joel, Amanda and others. I bet most of the autistics in the Hub have or had a diagnosis in writing.

    It's kind of an elitist requirement in my view, because in the world there are easily 10s of millions of autistic adults who simply can't get an official diagnosis even if they absolutely had to get one.

    Kent, who has suffered so much in life and so forth, apparently has no problem accessing a very expensive evaluation which most autistics around the world simply don't have access to.

    What does it matter to anyone other that myself if I'm autistic or not, anyway? Would the blog be any different if I simply identified myself as a parent? Would my arguments have more or less merit? (I guess to some people who focus on the messenger and not the message, it might make a difference.)

    Even if I was willing to spend the money required for a more official diagnosis, I don't know that it would be very possible for me to find a qualified specialist. I did talk to the psychiatrist who diagnosed my son, and she's informally in agreement that I'm on the spectrum, but she specializes in children.

    I'm certainly not going to get a written diagnosis simply because Kent thinks that all "real" autistic adults need to prove their neurological status.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "I believe David has an official diagnosis as well"

    I do.

    Actually... I identified it first, in my medical records; then I got a referral and was diagnosed 'officially' by a consultant psychiatrist (Dr. M. E. M. El Sherbini B. M., B. Ch., D. P. M., M. R. C. Psych.) and this was finally confirmed by another psychiatrist (Prof. D Tantam M. B., B. S., F. R. C. Psych.) - both people well-qualified enough to make the diagnosis (as, these days, am I!).

    "I did talk to the psychiatrist who diagnosed my son, and she's informally in agreement that I'm on the spectrum"

    That should be enough. Especially when your opponent hasn't even provided proof that he is himself autistic. At least, I haven't seen it!

    ReplyDelete
  59. I bet you Kent doesn't demand to see Jon Mitchell's or Lurker's official papers. That's simply how his trollish bias works.

    I seem to remember he questioned Donna Williams' diagnosis once. She must have said something he disagreed with.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Kent said:
    "Really, I don't understand why you would feel the need to constantly respond and take up for the self diagnosed when you could be advocating for the Sabine's, Jamey's etc. Unless......"

    Unless what? If you're inferring something, I don't know what it is. I'm responding to your accusation that all the Hub bloggers are "self-diagnosed", when that clearly isn't true.

    I've seen those Sabine and Jamey videos before, Sabine never should have been institutionalized, it clearly harmed her (as it would anyone), but that is what people do with relatives they can't care for. They're willing to pay vast amounts to have someone else do it, and close their eyes to the harm done to them. What can we do when their own family can't/won't take care of them?

    What "help" do you advocate for Jamey? It seems his family is doing for him as best they can, and if they need more help, I'm all for that, but I just don't know what would actually help Jamey. Tell us what you think needs to be done.

    This "Shelley", is that "Droopy" or "Marty" (I've honestly lost track.) If it's Droopy, yes, I think she could choose to be happy, if she has a home, some income, and isn't going hungry.

    I'm not big on organized religion, but I do say a word of thanks each night that I have a home, am warm, safe, well-fed, relatively healthy, and have no big conflicts or worries just now. It's part of practicing a positive outlook.

    If I wanted, I could dwell on all the things I don't have, and make long lists of them. That would just make me sad, so I choose not to.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Joseph said:
    "I bet you Kent doesn't demand to see Jon Mitchell's or Lurker's official papers."

    Lurker has admitted that he doesn't have any diagnosis, and specifically said he "no longer believes he's autistic" months ago on Cube Demon's blog. He has NO standing, except as an well-established troll.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Joseph, Donna Williams questioned my diagnosis first. I replied that "I don't give a shit". Why should I? Donna Williams is no one of any consequence to me and I don't worship at the alter of celebrity.

    I will admit that I'm in agreement with Dr. Fred Volkmar as well as Ms. Williams thesis advisor, her classmates and other informed and knowledgeable experts.

    As far as asking for papers, you'll have to point to something specific because I don't think I've ever asked for them from anyone. You should stop making stuff up.

    ReplyDelete
  63. That's a bit surprising, because I understand Donna Williams is another autistic of the type who boasts ideas like 'I really do care for all autistics, unlike those high functioning aspies.'

    Lurker has admitted that he doesn't have any diagnosis, and specifically said he "no longer believes he's autistic" months ago on Cube Demon's blog. He has NO standing, except as an well-established troll.

    If Lurker uses his status as an autistic person to put forth arguments, e.g. "in my experience, ..." then it is relevant whether he's really autistic or not, and him saying he "no longer believes he's autistic" sort of invalidates everything he's said along those lines.

    In my case, I'd argue my status is completely irrelevant to any arguments, since I never (or nearly never) use my personal experiences as evidence. In fact, I kind of dislike discussing personal stuff. It's just not my thing.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Forget you, David! Forget you, Joseph!

    You don't like to give up your willpower. You're so stubborn and resilient to anybody who disagrees with you guys.

    Anybody who's normal should be able to analyze what we've posted and see that I'm the one with the most common sense (i.e.- Geee....wasn't it David who started his flamewar with me when I was dealing with Joseph in the first place? I guess David forgot that someone can make an inference that he jumped on my back just to defend his buddy from ND, which he claims I'm "prejudiced" about- what a great vocabulary word to use for this type of circumstance! It's also obvious to a typical person, even plenty of disabled people, that an educational psychologist has no authority to determine if I have a language disability, especially when he hasn't heard me speak and thinks of me as a troll since I have no profile despite the fact I have a photo and blog username who's posted consistently on Jonathan's blog, yet I'm supposedly the idiot.).

    You're all selfish jerks who refuse to advocate your true problems you face daily due to your disability. It's all "I'll just talk to so and so's mother and let her know what little Jimmy needs to succeed and be cool like me! Maybe he doesn't really have a language problem; he just needs an environment with other people like him!"

    Then what happens if you get offended when you read what I wrote about you guys, especially about the being selfish part? You don't understand how you came across that way until the day you realize you need to see a speech therapist for communication and social interaction, and as you start processing information in a more typical way, you'll look back at what you currently sound like, and realize Jedi was right.

    Hopefully Joseph will realize his responses to my questions were weird and naive if he chooses to take my advice.

    Maybe this video will help you all understand that anyone on the autistic spectrum who's a part of Neurodiversity or against it, and constantly spends time on the Internet researching about autism and relating to people with autism what most of you people are going through in your life.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEg-Ja44xCw

    Within 32 secs. of the video, the narrator/man of the video says, "Yet the question is who do I turn to." Guess what? What you're experiencing in reality is not much different from what the man in the video experiences and how he feels. You all have the same question deep inside you, but your way of coping with it gets you nowhere in life. With the way you guys are, go ahead and continue suffering while you believe I'm the moron! That's your problem, not mine!

    I'm out of here! It's your loss. The problems many of you face as you grow up are along the same lines as those who suffer from communication disorders due to T.B.I.:

    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=klwVAAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=dysarthria%2Bsocial+and+communication+problems+&ots=sidLT80wCR&sig=sejTfpiS1zgGxcgwFOe3-N_TlTc#v=onepage&q=dysarthria%2Bsocial%20and%20communication%20problems&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  65. From the last link I posted, Page 32, in particular, is reminiscent to your problems due to your ASD.

    ReplyDelete
  66. JediShite2... you over-rate your own 'expertise' and your importance; you underestimate your own level of blame for how people respond to you, and you are useless at proving a point. Except that you're a trollish prick.

    "I'm out of here!"


    Thank fuck for that!

    "It's your loss."

    No it isn't. Seriously... it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "BTW, how is it possible that I have "shiny aspie" interests, when I stated above that the reason I'm interested in autism is my son, whom I've described as "classically autistic" in my profile? My son is 8, almost entirely non-verbal, very much disabled."

    It's a strawman. It doesn't have to make sense. And instead of attacking your arguments, @K attacks your person. Thus far this discussion is full of lovely examples of logical fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "It doesn't have to make sense. And instead of attacking your arguments, @K attacks your person. Thus far this discussion is full of lovely examples of logical fallacy." Stephanie, this isn't about logic. The arguments here don't exist in isolation without relevance to personal and group intentions. They are not separate at all from real life issues that affect individuals, including the ones discussing them. Arguments aren't being discussed without reason. Choices of arguments and the approaches to them, are influenced by those things, and the results of arguments eventually may have consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @Lurker: What you've just argued is called "appeal to motive."

    It's true that everyone has specific interests, and perhaps agendas and motives too. This, however, does not invalidate arguments put forth. What makes an argument valid are two things and two things only: (1) The premises are true, and (2) the argument is logically sound.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I can't think of a single person on my side who has chose not to deal with and discuss the validity of the many arguments on their own merits at times, aside from their discussion of personal motives. The arguments around here aren't objective and can promote things that are beneficial to some but not to others. I think some of them are designed in scope according to the intentions of the maker of the arguments. I don't see a reason not to criticize both the logic and the structure of the arguments themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Lurker,

    "The arguments here don't exist in isolation without relevance to personal and group intentions."

    The points made in these comments do not, but these points are not arguments in the sense of the word as I use it. A logical argument does exist separately from the person who makes it and the intentions of the group responding to it. Commenters here are not making logical arguments, they are merely attacking other commenters as driven by their own intentions. Logically, the entire method is invalid. Since this whole thing started with Joseph making a logical argument, you've done nothing but implicitly support his argument by your inability to refute it on its own merits.

    "I don't see a reason not to criticize both the logic and the structure of the arguments themselves."

    The point is that this is not what you and others here are doing. You're not criticizing the logic and the structure of anyone's argument nor are you making an argument of your own. You are merely criticizing the character of the person making the argument.

    A person and the argument a person makes are two distinct things.

    The reasoning that pervades these comments is thus:
    1) I don't like the conclusion.
    2) I don't like the person.
    3) Therefore, the conclusions are false.

    That's not logical or reasonable. Nobody here has said anything at all to contradict Joseph's complaints against Jonathan. Nobody here has said anything that logically refutes Joseph's original arguments. People are attacking each other for the sole purposes of attacking and discrediting the people with little or no attention given to the arguments made by the people.

    You may enjoy attacking Joseph. It may make you feel better about yourself or you may enjoy trying to make others feel badly. However, this does nothing to disprove or discredit the argument Joseph has made. It just makes you look like a jerk and a bully.

    Also, it's completely ineffective. Joseph is obviously secure in his own worth and his own credibility that your attacks will not change his behavior. He demonstrates himself as the more ethical, more reasonable person; and those attacking him look small and petty.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Lurker is right in that there's nothing wrong in criticizing the argument, and then the person.

    For example, if I say "your argument is flawed because of X and Y, and as a result I'm of the opinion you're a douchebag," that's not an ad-hominem argument. Some people seem to think it is.

    However, that's not what has occurred here.

    The trollish arguments we've seen here have been complete non-sequiturs along the lines of:

    - You're not autistic in my opinion, therefore I can dismiss any data you divulge.

    - I don't like researchers X and Y, who I suspect are involved in the study, so the results must be wrong or made up.

    - The sample size is not big enough to make the statements you make. (Which is statistically wrong.)

    As to the matter of whether I choose to divulge data that does not help promote grim notions of autism, seriously, what would it look like if I did otherwise? Without even considering ideology, does that really make sense?

    For example, say I chose to write about the VIQ results from the NHS study.

    Really, what that tells us is that autistics are not as good at reading a list of 50 words compared to non-autistics.

    Is that "dog bites man" or "man bites dog" sort of news?

    ReplyDelete
  73. In other words, then, Joseph....

    Lurker's talking bollocks?

    Just so long as we all know, yeh?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Stephanie,

    "People are attacking each other for the sole purposes of attacking and discrediting the people with little or no attention given to the arguments made by the people." That is untrue. You should realize that it's not just what someone says, but how someone says it, that is part of what someone is trying to convey.

    "You may enjoy attacking Joseph. It may make you feel better about yourself or you may enjoy trying to make others feel badly. However, this does nothing to disprove or discredit the argument Joseph has made. It just makes you look like a jerk and a bully."
    I don't condone your oversensitivity to disagreement with those on your side, nor your defensiveness when confronted about the deceptiveness of the double talk.

    Why is any criticism perceived by you as an attack? I think reacting that way shows there is something flawed in the views you subscribe to. Being secure in one's own credibility is far from enough. Others have to think a person has credibility for it to work. I don't think everything Joseph says is backed up by logic. The disagreement here isn't just over facts, but concerns what facts are presented, which facts are put together to make conclusions, and what some try to prove with such conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Lurker,

    I was responding specifically to you because you responded specifically to me. However, my comments were not restricted to those "on my side," whichever "side" you think that happens to be.

    I labeled your behavior an "attack," because you're trying to use passive-aggressive asides to discredit Joseph. On the surface, it would appear you're merely questioning the study. But, your response to my comment clarifies your intention.

    I can tolerate disagreement just fine. I call dishonesty what it is, and I consider the character assessments being flung around here to be of little value.

    "I don't think everything Joseph says is backed up by logic."

    I never said everything Joseph says is back up by logic. However, you have not pointed out any flaws in Joseph's logic in this post.

    "The disagreement here isn't just over facts, but concerns what facts are presented, which facts are put together to make conclusions, and what some try to prove with such conclusions."

    If that's what you're trying to do, then by all means do it. The only thing that seems even remotely close to fitting that description is your comment regarding the "communal establishments". Bonus points for the inappropriateness of "diagnosing" someone over a blog.

    The point is that all studies have flaws, just like all people have flaws. The flaws of a study may reflect the flaws of the research or the research institution or the limits of funding. The flaws of a study do not reflect the flaws of a person citing that study unless those flaws are not acknowledged when challenged. Joseph has acknowledged at least some of the flaws and limitations of this study.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Joseph,

    "Lurker is right in that there's nothing wrong in criticizing the argument, and then the person.

    For example, if I say "your argument is flawed because of X and Y, and as a result I'm of the opinion you're a douchebag," that's not an ad-hominem argument. Some people seem to think it is."

    If X and Y are actually reasonable arguments, then no it's not an ad-hominem. If X and Y are insignificant or unsubstantiated, then yes, it is an ad-hominem.

    More specifically, it reduces the likelihood of a reasonable debate. Choosing to use language like that means that any mutual understanding that could occur is not likely to occur. Even if you break it down to those who are pro-cure or pro-neurodiversity (which so many seem inclined to do), there are those on "both sides" who have valid points to make. If those points were heard, understood, and recognized, then there is room for at least some middle ground. This is why there are not only the two sides.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Why is any criticism perceived by you as an attack?

    I don't think they are. But misrepresentations are definitely attacks. So are off-topic proclamations like "you're not autistic because I say so." Not to mention irrelevant stuff like "do you have any real hobbies? wtf!!!"

    ReplyDelete
  78. I believe a lot of comments made here are so speculative and unconstructive, for instance those of JediKnight2, that the blog owner should have deleted them.

    I am getting increasingly sick of people who repeatedly misrepresent what others have written.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Jonathan Mitchell does not even respond to me anymore. I do not think he likes what I have to say.

    I do not even go to mitchell's blog anymore. It's too depressing and it gets under my skin. It makes more more depressed.

    ReplyDelete
  80. SBWG

    He definetly does lie about you.

    ReplyDelete