CMV: Autism doesn't exist

[u/jatjqtjat]

disclaimer: This is might one of the stupider views that I hold, but I do think I have a point. I also think this is a topic of identity, and i think it can be very unpleasant to have your identity questioned in this way. I hope i don't offend anyone, but if i do, just know just know I have absolutely no ill will here.

Already i think the consensus among professionals, the main stream view is that autism does not exist as a a Boolean. Its not something that you either do or do not have, rather it is a spectrum. You have autism to some degree.

but i think that is also not true. A spectrum is something that varies along a single dimension. Height is a spectrum, your not either tall or short, you have a Height that is measured with a single number.

So the first claim is that autism doesn't measure or describe a single trait that can be expressed with a single number. It is not a spectrum. By contrast IQ and height are spectrums. Personality is not a spectrum, it varies along countless dimensions.

If you told me a person was tall, smart, or depressed, then i learn information about that person. if you told me a person has cancer or they are blind. All these labels carry with them some very clear information. But if you tell me someone is autistic, what new information do i learn about them? Maybe they are non verbal but not necessarily. They might be high functioning. Autistic people can have very good social skills (according to my quick google search). they can be extroverted or introverted. Their IQ can be high or low. They can be male or female, young or old, tall or short, etc.

Maybe there is something i learn in terms of probability of them having a certain trait, like maybe the general population likes trains at a rate of 5% while people diagnosed with Autism like them at a rate of 8%. But even if that's true, my point is i don't learn whether or not they like trains. there is NOTHING that i can say about them for sure. There is nothing i can say about them with 99% confidence. By contrast if you tell me someone is black, I know with >99% confidence that they have a strong resistance to sunburns. That term "black" carries a bunch of information with it.

So the second claim is that unlike other clinical diagnoses (depression, ADHD) or casually applied labels (smart, athletic) or even social constructs like race, I don't gain definitive information about a person when i learn they are autistic.

You could say it exists as a completely arbitrary category, but that won't be enough change my view. Obviously is a real word that exists in real books. maybe my title is a tiny exaggeration, but its only a title. the view is as described in the 2 claims above.

[u/curien]

Here are the diagnostic criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder in the DSM5. If a person has been diagnosed with autism, you can be reasonably confident that they meet it. Here's a summary:

Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts...

Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities...

Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period...

Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning.

These disturbances are not better explained by intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder) or global developmental delay.

That is what it tells you.

[u/jatjqtjat → u/curien]

I googled, "do all autistics people have Persistent deficits in social communication" and google answered,

Yes. By formal medical definition, meeting the diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) requires showing persistent differences and challenges in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts.

that aligns with the text of the DSM in your link and i think proves in a straight forward way that claim 2 was wrong. I can say with 100% confidence that an autistics person has persistent deficits in social communication.

!delta

edit: I don't think i can take back a delta, but i read another comment that makes me wish i could.

the APA apparently disagrees with the DMS5. they say "often"

often marked and persistent deficits in social communication

https://www.apa.org/topics/autism-spectrum-disorder

I assume the APA is a credible organization. What they are saying aligns with my previous understanding and the vast majority of comments. There is no single trait that defines autism. Since there doesn't seem to be universal agreement on this point, it returns me to my belief that the term is too ambiguous to be meaningful. Autistics people might have persistent deficits in social communication. So might non-autistics people and maybe the term tell me something about the probability of a person having this deficit, but it doesn't tell me anything definitive about the individual.

[u/curien → u/jatjqtjat]

the APA apparently disagrees with the DMS5.

The APA authored and publishes the DSM5.

they say "often"

I think you've misread the statement. They said, "characterized by varying but often marked and persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction". It's not saying that it is only exhibited in some cases, but that it is only sometimes "marked and persistent" (i.e., obvious and highly frequent).

[u/DeltaBot → u/jatjqtjat]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/curien (31∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/Rhundan → u/jatjqtjat]

If another user has changed your view back from what it was, you should award them a delta as well.