Hacker News Reader

Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

Having seen a lot of very successful, but somewhat autistic people working in tech (probably Asperger's), it seems a little strange to be classifying it as a "disorder"...

View on HN

Having seen a lot of children, including my own, (10 years old and unable to speak), I think you should do a little more research on the entire spectrum the disorder covers.

This is one of the major problems with the autism community and the diagnosis. Someone who doesn't make eye contact and perhaps fixates on certain topics (maybe comp Sci) has the same diagnosis as my child who will require lifelong care and never live independently.

We need the public to understand both sides. To some autism is considered a 'gift', and this study suggested 46% of their numbers were at or above average IQ. What they didn't highlight is that 31% have low IQ and are the ones (as I mentioned earlier) that will require lifelong care and put an unimaginable burden on families.

Edit spelling

As another parent of a child with autism who is barely verbal, I have to agree, this is not the same as Aspergers. In fact, I think you'll agree, we hope our kids will one day only be diagnosed with Aspergers!

The problem with classifying autistic as "intelligent" and "obsessive" and "introverted" hides the truth that there are the other half of autistic people on the low-functioning end of the spectrum cannot live independently. And no, they're not exceptional at counting cards at Blackjack table either.

Young autistic children require many hours of direct speech and behavior therapy everyday just to get them to basic level of communicating what they want. This is the only known effective treatment for autistic children, but it has to happen every day for years, and it is extremely expensive. Trivializing autism causes insurance companies to put caps and limits on covering direct therapy because they don't see it as essential, but parents of autistic kids know that direct intense therapy is essential and makes a big difference.

This thread seems convinced that autism = intelligent and quirky. Maybe it is Rain Man, or the character on the show Parenthood or that other lawyer character (forget which show), or the prevalence of Asperger's in tech. People really don't seem to see it until it happens to them or their family.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, when the CDC chooses to highlight (1) that 46% of these kids are average to above IQ, it says "don't worry". Why didn't the CDC choose to highlight "31% of these kids are severely impacted, unemployable, and will require lifelong care at an incredible expense to their families (financial and emotional) and taxpayers"? 46% is not even a majority, yet the CDC chose that group to mention as a highlight.

Why would the CDC make that choice?

I agree, I have seen large differences in the disorder between people. For example, both may affect social behavior, but there is likely something else that triggers high vs low independence/IQ.

My girlfriends brother has autism and he is smart, but will watch "finding nemo" for two months on repeat (he's 8 btw). A classmate of mine (who is extremely intelligent) also has autism, but functions normally, besides running everywhere and not making eye contact. Clearly, there is a large difference between the two and they have drastically different traits and I would argue different disorders.

If this is the case, the autism spectrum should be split into different disorders. This would provide more information to parents, and teachers about what particular traits the child has.

Leaders in the autism community are lobbying for a change in the terminology or diagnosis. You have charities trying to provide support for the most negatively impacted, and then you have the highest functioning members of the community saying "stop trying to change us". It's like using the term paraplegic to apply to true paraplegics and people with a sprained ankle. Both may struggle to walk, but the underlying issue is entirely different.

Using the example above, my kid is closer to paraplegic. But being in the community, I know kids with the sprained ankle too. Based on the comments in this thread, it seems many here think that most in the community have a sprained ankle. From this one study 54% are below or average IQ, with 31% definitely below. These 31% are the ones that will require lifelong care.

We need to change terminology to differentiate, so the debates about whether an increase is actually an increase don't happen. The CDC provides stats on several diseases in real time - autism numbers came out this week for kids born in 2002 and diagnosed before 2010. Doesn't anyone question why this is?

It's asperger's. You'll know if you meet someone with full-blown autism. They would never get into employment.

The S in ASD stands for spectrum, as there is a diverse range of symptoms that may lead to an autism diagnosis. Many of these are not at odds with analytical or creative capacity. There's a gap between where aspergers tends to stopped being diagnosed and being unemployable, and it's not unidimensional.

I understand the spectrum to be honest, but I think in trying to get the rest of the world to understand ASD, you can't start off too deep. In the article it seems autism is now interchangeable with ASD, so we're losing even a binary terminology.

That is incorrect. While many who are significantly impaired will be unemployable beyond the most menial jobs, many with autism can be employed even in high level positions that may not require skills the person may lack due to autism. QA testing may be a good example.

Autism is a spectrum. It's not just Asperger's and wholly unemployable. There is lots of room in the middle.

Yes, but there's a significant percentage of people on the autism literally can not follow instructions, or cannot the focus to listen when spoken to, or cannot comprehend language. They require life long care, employable for small tasks perhaps, but not independent.

Many Asperger's people themselves have rejected the "disorder" label and ask to be thought of as different in a neutral, not necessarily bad way. For this reason they refer to non-Aspergers people as "neurotypical".

This is reasonable in regard to high-functioning Aspies, but remember that ASD covers a wide range. I think it would be better to retain the separate label for Asperger's, because it is distinguished by normal or better intelligence and language ability (while sharing other traits with classic autism) -- however, even within the Asperger's category there is a wide range.

Another aspect that is often underappreciated is that the HF aspie, if smart enough, can learn to adjust to normal society to such a degree that he/she can often pass for normal, so that a diagnostician would place him/her at a different point on the spectrum at different stages of life.

The neurodiverse crowd is an interesting case. Autism organizations find themselves getting criticized by them, with the stance that they "don't need fixing" - and they are correct. For those that autism is a gift, keep that gift. The people the groups are trying to help don't focus on the neurodiverse, but rather are focused on those.

If you have the ability to say "I don't need fixing" to the autism organizations, rest assured that they aren't referring to you.

To be clear, I was only commenting on the neurodiversity thing in reply to the parent, not advocating for it. We agree that it is relevant for only a small percentile of ASD individuals.

And on second thought, it may make sense from a public health perspective to abandon labels for subtypes, unless the experts think the subtypes have different causes. But AFAIK the causes of ASD are unknown.

Understood. I'd argue that the need for additional classifications is fairly evident just from the comments in this thread. Saying someone has 'autism' doesn't tell you much in terms of what level of care they may need - those who fall into the neurodiverse crowd may require no care and perhaps minimal supports, while some require lifelong care.

The burden on families and society is quite different for these groups, and further classifications are necessary. There are also several related health patterns (digestive, allergy, etc.) with many who are usually more severely impacted which will likely lead to more research on causes. Some advocate for an additional medical diagnosis instead of just referring to the neurological. Down the road there could be a separate diagnosis for those.

"Disorder" was the technical term in the DSM-IV-TR, which dates back to 2000. (I believe it dates even further than that but I'm not a psychiatrist.)

It really depends on the severity of the symptoms, and whether the individual has developed effective coping strategies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com