Current Events > Is it ethical to cure people who aren't neurotypical?

(+) Yeah! (+)

foreverzero212 posted...

Agreed. When I want to learn about a mental "disorder" I only listen to people with that mental "disorder." Disorder is just a social construct and doesn't exist.

great job putting things into my mouth that I never said.

there's tons of scientific literature about autism that's written by autistic people - Steve Silberman's Neurotribes is an excellent place to start
---

averagejoel posted...

you should try listening to autistic people. you might learn something

I mean, this is kinda a non-response. If the criticism you have of that organization goes further than what I outlined, then I'd love to know.

Also, if you are going to be snarky about being empathetic, you could at least use person first language. =P
---

averagejoel posted...

foreverzero212 posted...

Agreed. When I want to learn about a mental "disorder" I only listen to people with that mental "disorder." Disorder is just a social construct and doesn't exist.

great job putting things into my mouth that I never said.

there's tons of scientific literature about autism that's written by autistic people - Steve Silberman's Neurotribes is an excellent place to start

I am of aware of that literature because I only learn about mental "disorders" from people with mental "disorders." You act as if we are in disagreement, but we continue to agree.
---

foreverzero212 posted...

averagejoel posted...

foreverzero212 posted...

Agreed. When I want to learn about a mental "disorder" I only listen to people with that mental "disorder." Disorder is just a social construct and doesn't exist.

great job putting things into my mouth that I never said.

there's tons of scientific literature about autism that's written by autistic people - Steve Silberman's Neurotribes is an excellent place to start

I am of aware of that literature because I only learn about mental "disorders" from people with mental "disorders." You act as if we are in disagreement, but we continue to agree.

oh. I read your post as sarcastic. sorry
---

COVxy posted...

averagejoel posted...

you should try listening to autistic people. you might learn something

I mean, this is kinda a non-response. If the criticism you have of that organization goes further than what I outlined, then I'd love to know.

Also, if you are going to be snarky about being empathetic, you could at least use person first language. =P

well for one thing they don't have any autistic people on their board of directors

fo another, they largely devote their funds to finding a "cure" for autism when it could be better spent providing assistance to autistic people and their families.

also, side note: the majority of autistic people prefer identity-first
---

I want to see a generation of perfect modified babies, and then watch as every generation afterwards gets super hyper mega cancer.

averagejoel posted...

well for one thing they don't have any autistic people on their board of directors

I don't see the issue with this. One doesn't need to have autism to understand the science behind it and where money should be funneled for promising treatment.

averagejoel posted...

fo another, they largely devote their funds to finding a "cure" for autism when it could be better spent providing assistance to autistic people and their families.

And this is just the original point I was talking about. You dislike them primarily because they view autism as a disorder rather than an individual difference (which, I reiterate, is ridiculous and dangerous).
---

COVxy posted...

And this is just the original point I was talking about. You dislike them primarily because they view autism as a disorder rather than an individual difference (which, I reiterate, is ridiculous and dangerous).

ok, seriously, read the first 20 pages of Neurotribes and it'll sort you out
---

averagejoel posted...

ok, seriously, read the first 20 pages of Neurotribes and it'll sort you out

No it won't, because it's a silly point. All characteristics lie on a spectrum, but if any one of them is too extreme it ends in maladaptive behavior.

Like scientists score higher on autism scales than the average population, but nobody would consider the vast majority of these people (other than those who meet diagnostic criteria) autistic.

Pretending like people with autism are just like anyone else is not actually helpful. They need treatment, and hopefully some form of preventative medicine (if it really is due to prenatal development, like hyperserotonemia, for example, this could be detected and blunted).
---

COVxy posted...

averagejoel posted...

ok, seriously, read the first 20 pages of Neurotribes and it'll sort you out

No it won't, because it's a silly point. All characteristics lie on a spectrum, but if any one of them is too extreme it ends in maladaptive behavior.

Like scientists score higher on autism scales than the average population, but nobody would consider the vast majority of these people (other than those who meet diagnostic criteria) autistic.

Pretending like people with autism are just like anyone else is not actually helpful. They need treatment, and hopefully some form of preventative medicine (if it really is due to prenatal development, like hyperserotonemia, for example, this could be detected and blunted).

I'm not pretending autistic people are "just like" anyone else - they aren't even "just like" each other. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. autistic people are not lesser than neurotypicals, but that doesn't mean they're the same.

the history of "treatment" of autism is a lot like the history of "treatment" of homosexuality - it just causes more severe issues in the "treated" individuals. it doesn't help. most of the science surrounding autism is literally based on eugenics, so this should not be surprising.

the whole methodology of determining whether ABA was "successful" or not is extremely centered on neurotypicals interacting with autistic people, rather than on the autistic people themselves. it's based on things like "this person stopped flapping their hands and embarrassing me in public, so that means this treatment must have worked."
---

averagejoel posted...

it just causes more severe issues in the "treated" individuals. it doesn't help. most of the science surrounding autism is literally based on eugenics, so this should not be surprising.

That is not the current state of the literature, no.

averagejoel posted...

the whole methodology of determining whether ABA was "successful" or not is extremely centered on neurotypicals interacting with autistic people, rather than on the autistic people themselves. it's based on things like "this person stopped flapping their hands and embarrassing me in public, so that means this treatment must have worked."

It's based on things like "there's a reduction of this behavior that is either harmful or debilitating."

You are overly invested in describing abnormal behavior as normal to thereby call research into reducing it inhumane.
---

COVxy posted...

That is not the current state of the literature, no.

the term "aspergers" is literally named after a eugenicist

It's based on things like "there's a reduction of this behavior that is either harmful or debilitating."

You are overly invested in describing abnormal behavior as normal to thereby call research into reducing it inhumane.

you're overly invested in characterizing every typical autistic behaviour as harmful or debilitating to thereby invalidate the experiences of actual autistic people. see? I can do this too
---

Except the behavior often either harms them or prevents them from performing everyday tasks, things as simple as brushing their teeth.

Like, I think the reasoning here is pretty simple.
---

averagejoel posted...

the term "aspergers" is literally named after a eugenicist

Also, price of tea in china, etc...
---

COVxy posted...

Except the behavior often either harms them or prevents them from performing everyday tasks, things as simple as brushing their teeth.

Like, I think the reasoning here is pretty simple.

far more often, the behaviour has no negative effects other than embarrassing the kid's mother in public.
---

averagejoel posted...

COVxy posted...

Except the behavior often either harms them or prevents them from performing everyday tasks, things as simple as brushing their teeth.

Like, I think the reasoning here is pretty simple.

far more often, the behaviour has no negative effects other than embarrassing the kid's mother in public.

I've seen kids throw tantrums in public that have gotten CPS called on their parents because of this "embarassing behavior"
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

averagejoel posted...

COVxy posted...

Except the behavior often either harms them or prevents them from performing everyday tasks, things as simple as brushing their teeth.

Like, I think the reasoning here is pretty simple.

far more often, the behaviour has no negative effects other than embarrassing the kid's mother in public.

I've seen kids throw tantrums in public that have gotten CPS called on their parents because of this "embarassing behavior"

cool.
---

averagejoel posted...

far more often, the behaviour has no negative effects other than embarrassing the kid's mother in public.

I mean, it's nice and naive that you think that's the height of severity when it comes to autistic behavior, but it certainly is not.
---

COVxy posted...

Except the behavior often either harms them or prevents them from performing everyday tasks, things as simple as brushing their teeth.

Like, I think the reasoning here is pretty simple.

I can vouch for that specific example. My daughter is four years old and we have to brush her teeth for her. If we try to get her to do it, she'll just barely pass the brush over her front teeth. We also have to bathe her by hand ourselves because she'll just barely mimic the motions of washing her body and hair. There are also sanitary concerns related to her inconsistent progress with potty training.

We do try to get her to wash herself during bath time and brush her own teeth before bed, and she's made some small progress, but it's not enough yet. At least she doesn't exhibit any self-harming or otherwise violent behaviors.

Her communication skills are still far behind normal kids her age, but they have made gradual improvement with the ABA therapy, which is what we've been trying to focus on. She's now able to make basic explanatory statements or requests, but that sometimes still requires walking her through the sentences she's trying to get out. She isn't at a point where she can go to school yet, but at least she sometimes responds to her name now.

It does seem like a lot of her communication comes through scripting. Usually repeating phrases she heard on TV. Sometimes the context is obvious and other times we can't quite figure out what she's trying to get across, if anything.
---

COVxy posted...

averagejoel posted...

far more often, the behaviour has no negative effects other than embarrassing the kid's mother in public.

I mean, it's nice and naive that you think that's the height of severity when it comes to autistic behavior, but it certainly is not.

I never said that, or anything that suggested that. please don't put words in my mouth.
---

averagejoel posted...

I never said that, or anything that suggested that. please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not. We're talking about treatment of autism which you have declared to be unilaterally inhumane.

The way in which you've done this is to try to minimize the behavior, and pretend like the only reason anyone thinks it's negative is because it embarrasses them. Essentially, you are pretending like the behavior is completely fine, and that the treatment for behavioral adjustments are essentially torturing a normal individual into acting the way that is sanctioned by society. It's a complete misrepresentation of the disorder.
---

averagejoel posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

averagejoel posted...

COVxy posted...

Except the behavior often either harms them or prevents them from performing everyday tasks, things as simple as brushing their teeth.

Like, I think the reasoning here is pretty simple.

far more often, the behaviour has no negative effects other than embarrassing the kid's mother in public.

I've seen kids throw tantrums in public that have gotten CPS called on their parents because of this "embarassing behavior"

cool.

no it's literally the opposite of cool
---

averagejoel posted...

COVxy posted...

averagejoel posted...

far more often, the behaviour has no negative effects other than embarrassing the kid's mother in public.

I mean, it's nice and naive that you think that's the height of severity when it comes to autistic behavior, but it certainly is not.

I never said that, or anything that suggested that. please don't put words in my mouth.

You have been suggesting that this entire topic when you reduce therapy and treatment of abnotmal or maladaptive behavior stemming from autism as abusing children to save their parents from public embarrassment and make neurotypical people feel better.

If you can't or won't acknowledge that's what you've been doing, you're either deluded or disingenuous.
---

COVxy posted...

averagejoel posted...

I never said that, or anything that suggested that. please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not. We're talking about treatment of autism which you have declared to be unilaterally inhumane.

The way in which you've done this is to try to minimize the behavior, and pretend like the only reason anyone thinks it's negative is because it embarrasses them. Essentially, you are pretending like the behavior is completely fine, and that the treatment for behavioral adjustments are essentially torturing a normal individual into acting the way that is sanctioned by society. It's a complete misrepresentation of the disorder.

in that case, let me be quite clear:

the majority of typical autistic mannerisms are perfectly fine and do not harm anyone.
the ones that aren't do not merit ABA, which is abusive.

there are ways of teaching autistic children that do not involve ABA.

you should try reading stuff by actual autistic people who are informed about these issues, because, as exhibited in this topic, there are very few neurotypicals who get it.

Tyranthraxus posted...

no it's literally the opposite of cool

my point was that I don't care.
---

Esrac posted...

averagejoel posted...

COVxy posted...

averagejoel posted...

far more often, the behaviour has no negative effects other than embarrassing the kid's mother in public.

I mean, it's nice and naive that you think that's the height of severity when it comes to autistic behavior, but it certainly is not.

I never said that, or anything that suggested that. please don't put words in my mouth.

You have been suggesting that this entire topic when you reduce therapy and treatment of abnotmal or maladaptive behavior stemming from autism as abusing children to save their parents from public embarrassment and make neurotypical people feel better.

If you can't or won't acknowledge that's what you've been doing, you're either deluded or disingenuous.

there is another option that you're not considering
---

averagejoel posted...

the majority of typical autistic mannerisms are perfectly fine and do not harm anyone.
the ones that aren't do not merit ABA, which is abusive.

I mean, do you have any evidence of that at all? It seems that those who go through early ABA fair better on almost all outcome measures, including metrics of adaptive behavior and IQ, which if it were torture, you wouldn't predict.

averagejoel posted...

there are ways of teaching autistic children that do not involve ABA.

How so? I mean, ABA is literally just taking the basic science of learning and applying it to shape behavior. In almost any case of treatment, there's going to be some form of ABA, even if it is implicit.

TEACCH, what people call the cognitive model, doesn't seem to actually be orthogonal, and incorporates a lot of the ABA practices. Even what people rate as useful across them happens to be the overlap between the two.

Also, in examining evidence for this model, the evidence is shaky in comparison to the results seen with ABA.
---

COVxy posted...

I mean, do you have any evidence of that at all? It seems that those who go through early ABA fair better on almost all outcome measures, including metrics of adaptive behavior and IQ, which if it were torture, you wouldn't predict.

it's not really relevant if they do better on the outcome measures, because a major part of the problem is that the outcome measures themselves are flawed. they're basically measuring how well an autistic person can pretend to be neurotypical. if you punish typical autistic behaviours and reward neurotypical ones, of course you're going to see results in that respect.

COVxy posted...

How so? I mean, ABA is literally just taking the basic science of learning and applying it to shape behavior. In almost any case of treatment, there's going to be some form of ABA, even if it is implicit.

TEACCH, what people call the cognitive model, doesn't seem to actually be orthogonal, and incorporates a lot of the ABA practices. Even what people rate as useful across them happens to be the overlap between the two.

Also, in examining evidence for this model, the evidence is shaky in comparison to the results seen with ABA.

admittedly I don't know that much about TEACCH, but the stuff that I've seen suggests that their methodology and goals are much better than ABA. I've also heard good things about Floortime.
---

averagejoel posted...

it's not really relevant if they do better on the outcome measures, because a major part of the problem is that the outcome measures themselves are flawed. they're basically measuring how well an autistic person can pretend to be neurotypical. if you punish typical autistic behaviours and reward neurotypical ones, of course you're going to see results in that respect.

You think that IQ, language, and adaptive behavior are just neurotypical things?

averagejoel posted...

admittedly I don't know that much about TEACCH, but the stuff that I've seen suggests that their methodology and goals are much better than ABA.

Not according to the data. ABA produces reliable benefits, while the research on TEACCH is mixed at best.
---

COVxy posted...

You think that IQ, language, and adaptive behavior are just neurotypical things?

ABA bases its "evidence" on the idea that autism is a behavioral problem. it isn't. ABA reinforces behaviour based on how it appears outwardly to neurotypical people, not on whether or not it's actually adaptive. it forces kids to do things all day every day that will never feel natural to them, and in most cases make them very uncomfortable.

it's using itself as its own measuring stick - it's based on neurotypical people measuring "success" as suppressed autistic behaviours and more "normal" "functional" (read: neurotypical) behaviours.

success should be measured by focusing on the autistic person's happiness and self-worth, rather than how well they can pass as neurotypical.

Not according to the data. ABA produces reliable benefits, while the research on TEACCH is mixed at best.

"benefits"

yes, PTSD. great benefit there. I'll gladly take mixed research over that.
---

So you'd say that communication, IQ, being able to do every day tasks like brush your teeth or communicate that you're hungry, these are just yardsticks that neurotypical people value? Not at all important for those with autism?

Because these are the outcome measures in these studies.
---

COVxy posted...

So you'd say that communication, IQ, being able to do every day tasks like brush your teeth or communicate that you're hungry, these are just yardsticks that neurotypical people value? Not at all important for those with autism?

Because these are the outcome measures in these studies.

why are you so hung up on this idea? you're usually a pretty reasonable poster
---

averagejoel posted...

why are you so hung up on this idea? you're usually a pretty reasonable poster

do you know what he said about aoc
---

averagejoel posted...

why are you so hung up on this idea? you're usually a pretty reasonable poster

Because these factors aren't "oh he's flapping his hands, so embarrassing!". They measure really globally important functionality.

Like, for you, it seems the only measure you'd be satisfied with is subjective happiness, which is ridiculous.
---

COVxy posted...

averagejoel posted...

why are you so hung up on this idea? you're usually a pretty reasonable poster

Because these factors aren't "oh he's flapping his hands, so embarrassing!". They measure really globally important functionality.

Like, for you, it seems the only measure you'd be satisfied with is subjective happiness, which is ridiculous.

honestly I'd be at least semi-satisfied with results that didn't include PTSD among them
---

foreveraIone posted...

averagejoel posted...

why are you so hung up on this idea? you're usually a pretty reasonable poster

do you know what he said about aoc

I googled "aoc" and found like 6 different meanings for the acronym, so you're gonna have to be more specific here
---

averagejoel posted...

honestly I'd be at least semi-satisfied with results that didn't include PTSD among them

Except there's no evidence for that. In fact, if we go looking for what childhood abuse looks like on these types of outcome factors, we have the reverse effects!

Show me a single study that has found that ABA leads to PTSD symptomology.
---

I have, thus far, found a single study on a shady journal which used pretty uncontrolled methodology.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/AIA-08-2017-0016
---

"Curing" all those people would stunt human innovation. People thinking differently is responsible for many things we have in life. And I'm not a geneticist, but I wonder if gene editing allowing us to pure breed everyone would lead to problems. Genetic diversity is a good thing.
---

COVxy posted...

I have, thus far, found a single study on a shady journal which used pretty uncontrolled methodology.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/AIA-08-2017-0016

And if you google the author it doesn't look like she's actually an academic associated with any institution, but an autism advocate.

I've said this several times throughout the topic, but you should read Neurotribes. Steve Silberman covers the history around this much better than I can. you're pretty clearly not listening to me, so I'm not interested in continuing this conversation any further.
---

averagejoel posted...

COVxy posted...

I have, thus far, found a single study on a shady journal which used pretty uncontrolled methodology.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/AIA-08-2017-0016

And if you google the author it doesn't look like she's actually an academic associated with any institution, but an autism advocate.

I've said this several times throughout the topic, but you should read Neurotribes. Steve Silberman covers the history around this much better than I can. you're pretty clearly not listening to me, so I'm not interested in continuing this conversation any further.

I am listening to you. I'm asking you to provide actual evidence, not anecdotes, not pop science writing.

Reading a pop science book would only convince me in so far as it references a strong primary literature.
---