Edit: It would be helpful to know why I'm being downvoted in this thread. What I stated about the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria isn't wrong; that doesn't mean I agree with it.
Edit: It would be helpful to know why I'm being downvoted in this thread. What I stated about the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria isn't wrong; that doesn't mean I agree with it.
How can you know that? I mean, you seem to be just restating the status quo against this article, but they've provided evidence against it, and you're not providing any evidence for it.
It doesn't seem like the kids have to do anything consciously such that they'd "become autistic" again if they stopped.
What's most interesting to me is that they can't tell what's going on inside young kids just by observing them.
Even ignoring the fact that DSM has major changes in every revision...
That's totally unhelpful. Use words to communicate, not confuse.
If I say "two plus two is five", and then explain it by counting "one, two, three, five", it's clear that I am using a different word, but I have the same idea as the common "two plus two is four".
When you seek to compate with a definition to empirical data, if the definition doesn't match, that means that the words we are using need to be clarified, not that the empirical data is wrong. (The data might be wrong, but "appeal to dictionary" is not a persuasive argument.
In a broader sense, this shows a fundamental flaw of psychology. I'm not saying I agree with the diagnostic criteria, but it's all we have.
Hi, autistic person here.
I was always relatively high-functioning, in some ways. I was always better than my peers at math and reading, but my social disability was crippling. In retrospect, I had a lot of the standard characteristics--repetitive movements, ADD, obsessive behavior, freaking out if things didn't fit my plans or expectations--but the inability to recognize social cues was the one that caused me the most trouble and pain.
And I fixed it. At some point in middle school, another autistic boy in my special-ed class was really annoying me, and I realized that he was acting exactly the same way I did. I could recognize it in him, but not in myself. So, to gloss over 20 years of effort and practice and failure, I taught myself to see myself as an outside observer, to judge my own behavior--first broadly, and slowly narrowing down to tone, word choice, and body language--as I would judge someone else's.
I'm pretty social these days. Most people don't know I'm autistic unless I tell them (which I do if it comes up; I'm not ashamed of it). A lot of the folks in the article would probably say that my autism had been cured. And they'd be full of shit.
I still obsess over minutae. Properly focused, it can be a genuine joy. It still really, seriously troubles me when plans are changed at the last minute, but most of the time I can take a deep breath and move on. I still stim, but I can suppress it around strangers. And, sometimes, with the right sort of data-analysis problem, I can apply the sort of absolute, crystalline clarity that people normally associate with Rain Man.
I am an autistic person who has learned good coping strategies. So are "B." and Mark Macluskie and Matt Tremblay and the rest. The article repeatedly mentions lingering autistic traits, like Mark's tactile aversions and Matt's flapping, but somehow they don't count. In this mindset, autism is a sickness, and if you're no longer visibly sick then you must not be autistic. That's bullshit. Autism is in the way your mind is shaped. It has good sides and it has bad sides. Some people, with the right treatment and insights, learn how to accentuate the good and minimize the bad. That's not a "cure," it's dealing with life.
Therapy is a way to teach him to interact and communicate with the world that doesn't quite fit his thought structure.
I'd say it's more than just teaching him how to fit in and appear normal, that's a side effect of teaching him how understand the 'alien' society he is in.
I like to describe it as though the part of my brain that would normally be processing one type of signal seems like it's been repurposed to process something different [0]. Social signals are incredibly difficult, but I can navigate complex structures in 3D space (think: levels in Descent or similar video games) easily. My son doesn't make eye contact, but he's 4 years old and can do fraction calculations in his head that my 10 year old students struggled with.
[0] note that I'm not claiming a specific physical mechanism, just describing how it feels -- things other people find easy I find incredibly challenging and vice versa, as if they have a dedicated brain-area for task X and I have one for task Y.
A cure that removes the apparent symptoms but doesn't cure the actual disease: is that gaming the system? And if so, well, so what?
DSM-5 explicitly states that the criteria may apply "currently or by history", which rules out a cure for autism by definition.
We are all a little different on the inside than we appear. See a popular HN topic, Imposter Syndrome.