My brother and I are different types. He’s super genius, and it’s not Savantism. Crazy good physicist, but awkward.
My daughter is yet another. Smart, not like my brother but not an idiot. Absolutely all of hers is wrapped up in communicative and emotional disorders, with some associated tics and traits. She has to learn social interactions the hard way and still lives my mimic frequently.
I’m the one that was able to read body language absurdly accurately, to the point of fault and often pissing other folks of as I had no idea why they said something when it was absolutely false… This combined with a nearly faultless audio sense of memory (not eidetic) got my into frequent trouble with people getting mad at me not got arguing, but for always being right.
So I ask… Who exactly did they stick under the microscope here? I’m not bitching; I really want there to be more and better research here, but I’m skeptical of most that wraps up things in so neat a headline or category. What variations of spectrum? Did they compensate for more societal assumptions and myths than has been the history here?
The paper itself lists a highly limiting scope, with effectively a bias that would have eliminated all 3 of us from consideration for various reasons. Instead, they are polling data from effectively a group that in glance looks like a socially acceptable grouping, leaving out a huge block that have any metal illness diagnosis based on 2013 DSM… A joke in itself here.
I appreciate that they are trying to look at an early development baseline to see what forms differently at crucial 1-4 year ages and then watching confirmed formation changes in later life. My concern is that ruling out what at a glance is a huge sampling purely on assumption that “mental illness” and a few of the other limits they imposed have boxed them into the old single flavor diagnosis again.
Ok, but what type of autistic?
My brother and I are different types. He’s super genius, and it’s not Savantism. Crazy good physicist, but awkward.
My daughter is yet another. Smart, not like my brother but not an idiot. Absolutely all of hers is wrapped up in communicative and emotional disorders, with some associated tics and traits. She has to learn social interactions the hard way and still lives my mimic frequently.
I’m the one that was able to read body language absurdly accurately, to the point of fault and often pissing other folks of as I had no idea why they said something when it was absolutely false… This combined with a nearly faultless audio sense of memory (not eidetic) got my into frequent trouble with people getting mad at me not got arguing, but for always being right.
So I ask… Who exactly did they stick under the microscope here? I’m not bitching; I really want there to be more and better research here, but I’m skeptical of most that wraps up things in so neat a headline or category. What variations of spectrum? Did they compensate for more societal assumptions and myths than has been the history here?
The paper itself lists a highly limiting scope, with effectively a bias that would have eliminated all 3 of us from consideration for various reasons. Instead, they are polling data from effectively a group that in glance looks like a socially acceptable grouping, leaving out a huge block that have any metal illness diagnosis based on 2013 DSM… A joke in itself here.
I appreciate that they are trying to look at an early development baseline to see what forms differently at crucial 1-4 year ages and then watching confirmed formation changes in later life. My concern is that ruling out what at a glance is a huge sampling purely on assumption that “mental illness” and a few of the other limits they imposed have boxed them into the old single flavor diagnosis again.