Is hfa/aspergers under-diagnosed among normies?

[maidenhaver]

Scam.

This pseudo-science loves to generalize its results to encompass as many as possible so they can put you on medications.

Not saying the condition doesn't exist at the extremes, but this idea that all of these generic habits, or behaviors somehow mean you are such? Garbage in, Garbage out.

Those abnornal behaviors, taken together, are what they call aspergers syndrome. You can argue the diagnosis is bullshit, or that the test itself is bullshit, which it is, but if you were honest then you could be a genetic freak. Welcome.

[Nooneatall]

[Xenich]

Scam.

This pseudo-science loves to generalize its results to encompass as many as possible so they can put you on medications.

Not saying the condition doesn't exist at the extremes, but this idea that all of these generic habits, or behaviors somehow mean you are such? Garbage in, Garbage out.

Those abnornal behaviors, taken together, are what they call aspergers syndrome. You can argue the diagnosis is bullshit, or that the test itself is bullshit, which it is, but if you were honest then you could be a genetic freak. Welcome.

I thought I was? Those behaviors are behaviors that can be attributed to many reasons, hence the garbage in, garbage out. What scientific process did they use to establish this? They didn't, because they don't practice scientific process, they make many assumptions, loose correlations, and classify via "consensus" and politicking. By the way, why was homosexuality all of a sudden removed as a mental illness?

Next you are going to tell me Dr. John Money was correct.

[maidenhaver]

No, those behaviors together are called aspergers, not many reasons. The test you took online is a junk test, but you'd probably pass the real one and be sent away forever.

[maidenhaver]

[Xenich]

No, those behaviors together are called aspergers, not many reasons. The test you took online is a junk test, but you'd probably pass the real one and be sent away forever.

Well, I scored so low that my "wheel" looked like it was empty.

For instance, this one I thought interesting... the "Eye" contact thing. There are so many reasons why people do not make eye contact it is laughable to even consider it as a metric. Many of those test elements were the same. So vague and so many other reasonable explanations as to why a person might have that habit, even if they were in conjunction with each other.

Those behaviors are "believed" to be, not verified and validated to such. It isn't a science, they can't apply direct claims to a given condition and be certain through scientific process (verification, validation, replication). It only takes a single fact to dispute a given hypothesis, making it invalid (well, unless they can test the antithesis and show it through the same process).

Its assumed as such because a group agreed to it and consensus is not science (much like homosexuality being removed as a mental illness, it wasn't shown to be such, it was politically pressured and taken to a vote. Science doesn't work like that).

If you can not properly establish every single variable as being that condition, then it is just a guess and that is where all the garbage assumptions come in.

Like I said, I am not saying the condition doesn't exist, but the symptoms are suggestive, not established.

[maidenhaver]

The real test would be measuring your response times and anxiety. You are probably very fatally autistic.

[Acrux]

If you can not properly establish every single variable as being that condition, then it is just a guess and that is where all the garbage assumptions come in.

As someone with a PhD in behavioral science, I can tell that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

[Xenich]

If you can not properly establish every single variable as being that condition, then it is just a guess and that is where all the garbage assumptions come in.

As someone with a PhD in behavioral science, I can tell that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

As someone who doesn't have any respect for "Behavioral science" as it is practiced, your opinion does not matter.

[Acrux]

your opinion does not matter.

[Xenich]

your opinion does not matter.

[Acrux]

Hey, Jamie, pull up Feynman's early life.

Also, I said behavioral science. Not social science. There's a difference smart guy.

<sarcasm>

You seem very intelligent.

</sarcasm>

[Xenich]

Hey, Jamie, pull up Feynman's early life.

Also, I said behavioral science. Not social science. There's a difference smart guy.

<sarcasm>

You seem very intelligent.

</sarcasm>

They both do not practice the scientific method to its fruition. They apply some scientific process (play the part), but do not have to properly establish themselves as is required in science. There are huge replication problems in that field alone. Keep in mind, Theoretical Physics is also not "science" as it can not establish itself fully within the process (ie it can not be verified, validated, and replicated outside of abstract means).

If you will note, I don't take issue with the field of study itself (ie. doing analysis, speculating on patterns in a pursuit to understand, etc... after all statistical analysis is a useful tool in discovery), but they can not be established to any conclusive means.

My problem has been those who put faith in them as such, and use them as weapons, or arrogantly wield them to which they cause harm through social policy, medical practice, and lawful edicts. How many years were these fools pumping brain altering chemicals into people only to find out that Serotonin didn't cause depression? Certainly I don't need to go into the horrors of the fields of psychology in its early days?

Even traditional science is at risk of bias, and corruption, but it at least has proper process to fully establish its hypothesis and even then, the field admits that if the hypothesis ever fails accordingly, it is wrong.

So it doesn't matter what label you put on it, it isn't science.

But hey, so far you are applying the traditional techniques of those fields through logical fallacies (appeals to authority are not intelligent, honest, or a logical means to establish ones position), it's ok... I forgive you, it is the par for the course in these fields.

[Acrux]

But hey, so far you are applying the traditional techniques of those fields

Oh, nah. I have a real job. I've used the scientific method maybe twice in my 20 year career.

Anyway, I agree with most of what you wrote. It's just that:

1) You seem like one of those "I fucking love SCIENCE!" types who think there aren't other ways of knowing besides the epistemology of SCIENCE!
2) Your posts kind of irritate me and you seem somewhat easy to provoke, so it's fun.

appeals to authority are not intelligent, honest, or a logical means to establish ones position

Hmmm...like quoting Feynman?

► Show Spoiler

Also, @OnTilt agreed with a post saying my opinion doesn't matter. No longer my favorite new poster.

[Xenich]

But hey, so far you are applying the traditional techniques of those fields

Oh, nah. I have a real job. I've used the scientific method maybe twice in my 20 year career.

Well, like I said... not science though. Which without that method, there is too much guess work and no resolving ones observations as having any real conclusive meaning. Though this is all too common regardless of the field these days.

Anyway, I agree with most of what you wrote. It's just that:

1) You seem like one of those "I fucking love SCIENCE!" types who think there aren't other ways of knowing besides the epistemology of SCIENCE!
2) Your posts kind of irritate me and you seem somewhat easy to provoke, so it's fun.

1) Not really, more of an issue with most fields these days acting arrogant in their premature conclusions, then having them drive policy, medical treatment, and law. They have become a tool for the corrupt.

2) Wasn't my intent (I did though make a general snipe about a lot of incompetent people choosing those fields over the hard sciences, though this was my general experience over the years). Again, don't confuse my responses to clarify, discuss in detail, etc... as being riled. It is just my general nature of how I discuss things, though I admit I do tire of people (not saying you) who have a degree using it as authority when they couldn't pass a weeder course in a STEM field or have no clue what scientific practice is.

appeals to authority are not intelligent, honest, or a logical means to establish ones position

Hmmm...like quoting Feynman?

► Show Spoiler

Also, @OnTilt agreed with a post saying my opinion doesn't matter. No longer my favorite new poster.

Turn about is fair play. If I remember correctly, you were the one who came out swinging with an appeal to authority. I had considered using a meme with Heman saying "By the power of PHD, I have the power!!!".

Also, in the video, there are some papers flashed across showing the problems various fields have had concerning scientific process, my mention of him was more so that what I was saying isn't some crazy wild ranting of an internet poster.

[Emphyrio]

barely related: who were the two famous guys who argued about whether "falsifiability" was actually relevant to scientific trends? One guy who was actually a scientist and one guy who was just a science advocate.

[Acrux]

I admit I do tire of people (not saying you) who have a degree using it as authority when they couldn't pass a weeder course in a STEM field or have no clue what scientific practice is.

Oh, completely agree here. I tend to not hire people with PhDs because most of them are assholes who have an overinflated sense of what they know.

[herkzter]

there's a million individual flavors of autism and it varies on a case-per-case basis, but there are some common hallmarks that i use to gauge whether or not if if someone has the 'tism or assburgers:

1) rain man-tier superb recall
2) being overly literal and unable to parse jokes in certain situations unless if the person has personal insight into the person they're conversing with (dis one i'm guilty of sometimes)
3) very specific and niche interests (yeah i'm guilty of this one too)
4) this one is more specific and requires insight to notice, but a lot of autists or aspies tend to treat other individuals like they're kitchen appliances - instead of actual people - unless if they're conditioned to grow out of it; otherwise, this is a very common quality that i see in a lot of internet niggas that have the 'tism or assburgers

[maidenhaver]

Guilty of all four, especially 4. People have places in the heirarchy and must stay in their drawers.

[aweigh]

wanted to interject that women cannot be autistic. without the social consequences it is impossible to actually "be" autistic. Food for thought.

[Slavic Sorcerer]

[Lord of Riva]

-

I would answer you, but I have a buttload of work atm. I'm not gone though, i'll be back.

[Thor Kaufman]

Trump should know. He's the father of the covid vaccine, after all.

No, those behaviors together are called aspergers, not many reasons. The test you took online is a junk test, but you'd probably pass the real one and be sent away forever.

Well, I scored so low that my "wheel" looked like it was empty.

For instance, this one I thought interesting... the "Eye" contact thing. There are so many reasons why people do not make eye contact it is laughable to even consider it as a metric. Many of those test elements were the same. So vague and so many other reasonable explanations as to why a person might have that habit, even if they were in conjunction with each other.

Those behaviors are "believed" to be, not verified and validated to such. It isn't a science, they can't apply direct claims to a given condition and be certain through scientific process (verification, validation, replication). It only takes a single fact to dispute a given hypothesis, making it invalid (well, unless they can test the antithesis and show it through the same process).

Its assumed as such because a group agreed to it and consensus is not science (much like homosexuality being removed as a mental illness, it wasn't shown to be such, it was politically pressured and taken to a vote. Science doesn't work like that).

If you can not properly establish every single variable as being that condition, then it is just a guess and that is where all the garbage assumptions come in.

Like I said, I am not saying the condition doesn't exist, but the symptoms are suggestive, not established.

Such a detailed dissection. I diagnose you with terminal autism

[Anon]

I admit I do tire of people (not saying you) who have a degree using it as authority when they couldn't pass a weeder course in a STEM field or have no clue what scientific practice is.

Oh, completely agree here. I tend to not hire people with PhDs because most of them are assholes who have an overinflated sense of what they know.

In a way it's sad that people work their asses off to end up having less employment chances than somebody who has done 1/10th of the academic work they did because it's a common conception about PhDs that people have

In another you're just right

[gerey]

The root cause is the extinction of proper bullies. Just like removing wolves from a forest ecosystem eventually leads to its collapse, removing bullies from their natural habitat leads to social rot.

Back in saner times bullies would weed out the freaks and either bully them into behaving normally, make them quit society altogether, or make them self-eject from the mortal plane.

Bullies were society's antibodies, mercilessly hounding the faggot, the troon, the dyke, the liberal et al until they learned to behave.

[Boontaker]

91% probability of moderate autism

[Irenaeus]

Bullies were society's antibodies, mercilessly hounding the faggot, the troon, the dyke, the liberal et al until they learned to behave.

We, being a third-world shithole, still have tons of bullies so I expect my kid to turn out ok since I'm not going to shield him from normal childhood (which would be putting him in a fag school for sissies, for example).

[Xenich]

I admit I do tire of people (not saying you) who have a degree using it as authority when they couldn't pass a weeder course in a STEM field or have no clue what scientific practice is.

Oh, completely agree here. I tend to not hire people with PhDs because most of them are assholes who have an overinflated sense of what they know.

In a way it's sad that people work their asses off to end up having less employment chances than somebody who has done 1/10th of the academic work they did because it's a common conception about PhDs that people have

In another you're just right

• Education today is so corrupted, it does more damage than it helps in many cases.

• Most don't retain what they learned unless they go into a specific field that applies it regularly.

• Many fields only need a primer and some training to achieve the needed skillsets to do the job properly making the "degree" extreme overkill.

• There is a large disconnect from that which is learned and that which is applied in the world.

• If you aren't a critical/individual thinker when you enter, you won't be one when you get out.

• You get out of it what you put in (ie going above and beyond what is given is required to truly understand the topics, and identify the propaganda).

• The education system overloads with useless topics which detract from the focus of study.

• The cost to benefit ratio makes modern education a very poor investment in most cases.

• Most degrees are impractical and useless in reality.

• Many that are in the education system, really aren't cut out for it.

Today, trade skills will net someone far more income than academic ones. A Contractor, Welder, Machinist, Electrician, Mechanic, etc... who is motivated will far out earn and be in higher demand than most academic fields. I have known many who pull income in the 7 figures easily and only have a high school education.

Also, tech field focuses are better served by self educated/motivated than they are going through the academic system. There was a time when you had to go through the system as your only method for learning were confusing technical manuals that were designed for reference, not learning. These days, everything is tailored to "self learning" making education through an academic setting costly and wasteful.

We were fooled into sending all of our manufacturing and trade jobs to other countries under the guise that academia was the key. It was nothing more than a banking and propaganda scam to indebt the populace and indoctrinate them with programmed narratives.

If we had put honest focus to our education system with the goal to actually produce practical and useful skills, there would be a ton of trade schools within the universities and most 4+ year degrees would be finished in 2 years (ie cutting out all the useless garbage). That however would work against the goals.

[Anon]

Oh, completely agree here. I tend to not hire people with PhDs because most of them are assholes who have an overinflated sense of what they know.

In a way it's sad that people work their asses off to end up having less employment chances than somebody who has done 1/10th of the academic work they did because it's a common conception about PhDs that people have

In another you're just right

• Education today is so corrupted, it does more damage than it helps in many cases.

• Most don't retain what they learned unless they go into a specific field that applies it regularly.

• Many fields only need a primer and some training to achieve the needed skillsets to do the job properly making the "degree" extreme overkill.

• There is a large disconnect from that which is learned and that which is applied in the world.

• If you aren't a critical/individual thinker when you enter, you won't be one when you get out.

• You get out of it what you put in (ie going above and beyond what is given is required to truly understand the topics, and identify the propaganda).

• The education system overloads with useless topics which detract from the focus of study.

• The cost to benefit ratio makes modern education a very poor investment in most cases.

• Most degrees are impractical and useless in reality.

• Many that are in the education system, really aren't cut out for it.

Today, trade skills will net someone far more income than academic ones. A Contractor, Welder, Machinist, Electrician, Mechanic, etc... who is motivated will far out earn and be in higher demand than most academic fields. I have known many who pull income in the 7 figures easily and only have a high school education.

Also, tech field focuses are better served by self educated/motivated than they are going through the academic system. There was a time when you had to go through the system as your only method for learning were confusing technical manuals that were designed for reference, not learning. These days, everything is tailored to "self learning" making education through an academic setting costly and wasteful.

We were fooled into sending all of our manufacturing and trade jobs to other countries under the guise that academia was the key. It was nothing more than a banking and propaganda scam to indebt the populace and indoctrinate them with programmed narratives.

If we had put honest focus to our education system with the goal to actually produce practical and useful skills, there would be a ton of trade schools within the universities and most 4+ year degrees would be finished in 2 years (ie cutting out all the useless garbage). That however would work against the goals.

Yes I agree with all your assessments, that's why I said he was right.

Though there are certainly people that make great use of the education system, it's waaaaaay less proportionately than a century ago since nowadays education is seen only as a step to place yourself in the job market, not to hone your intellect and research new, productive knowledge for the society.

[Xenich]

In a way it's sad that people work their asses off to end up having less employment chances than somebody who has done 1/10th of the academic work they did because it's a common conception about PhDs that people have

In another you're just right

• Education today is so corrupted, it does more damage than it helps in many cases.

• Most don't retain what they learned unless they go into a specific field that applies it regularly.

• Many fields only need a primer and some training to achieve the needed skillsets to do the job properly making the "degree" extreme overkill.

• There is a large disconnect from that which is learned and that which is applied in the world.

• If you aren't a critical/individual thinker when you enter, you won't be one when you get out.

• You get out of it what you put in (ie going above and beyond what is given is required to truly understand the topics, and identify the propaganda).

• The education system overloads with useless topics which detract from the focus of study.

• The cost to benefit ratio makes modern education a very poor investment in most cases.

• Most degrees are impractical and useless in reality.

• Many that are in the education system, really aren't cut out for it.

Today, trade skills will net someone far more income than academic ones. A Contractor, Welder, Machinist, Electrician, Mechanic, etc... who is motivated will far out earn and be in higher demand than most academic fields. I have known many who pull income in the 7 figures easily and only have a high school education.

Also, tech field focuses are better served by self educated/motivated than they are going through the academic system. There was a time when you had to go through the system as your only method for learning were confusing technical manuals that were designed for reference, not learning. These days, everything is tailored to "self learning" making education through an academic setting costly and wasteful.

We were fooled into sending all of our manufacturing and trade jobs to other countries under the guise that academia was the key. It was nothing more than a banking and propaganda scam to indebt the populace and indoctrinate them with programmed narratives.

If we had put honest focus to our education system with the goal to actually produce practical and useful skills, there would be a ton of trade schools within the universities and most 4+ year degrees would be finished in 2 years (ie cutting out all the useless garbage). That however would work against the goals.

Yes I agree with all your assessments, that's why I said he was right.

Though there are certainly people that make great use of the education system, it's waaaaaay less proportionately than a century ago since nowadays education is seen only as a step to place yourself in the job market, not to hone your intellect and research new, productive knowledge for the society.

Well, in the far past we used to point out that academia was for a very narrow purpose and use, the rest were drilled on the cores and life basics so they could function. You used to learn all the basics in elementary, then a little bit more in Highschool with the last couple of years where the academics would take classes to prep for that and the rest took classes like wood shop, machine shop, auto shop, Agriculture, Welding, Animal husbandry, Home economics, etc...

One thing I am thankful for is my lower education still had all those things. By the time I got out of high school on top of the core, I could work on my own car, machine parts, craft anything in a wood shop, grow crops, handle live stock, Weld, do construction, cook and manage my finances, sew, and do leather working, etc... I learned all that (while also working various jobs), and still ended up going to college. Heck, we even had rifle/archery/hunting club as well.

It didn't matter what I chose to focus on after that, I had all the skills to do whatever I wanted and that helped in changing various focuses over the years. I was never in a position where I "felt" like I was trapped to a given career.

If we had pushed this approach rather than what we did, our populace would be as strong as it used to be.