/r9trip/ - The Complete Robot

Here's Rushton again, corroborating my claim of the Black's superior social functioning vis-a-vis IQ-matched Whites.

The point I found interesting in this was how race relates to the comorbidity of retardation as gauged by low IQ, and social disorders (specifically autistic spectrum disorders).

what makes low functioning whites more prone to being on the spectrum?

We've discussed this before, but what I'm primarily interested in is if having a family history of high functioning autism only, increases the risk of a child being born low functioning.

In an ideal world, assuming that even in an ideal world we would still have to put up with autistic spectrum disorders and retardation, at the very least the two ought not to be comorbid.

To repeat myself again, I would hope that if there is a statistically higher proportion of low functioning individuals among those on the autistic spectrum, it is simply because there are plenty of high functioning autists who have gone undiagnosed and unreported.

Autphag, you offered another explanation in that there is a higher prevalence of false autistic diagnoses in the low functioning populations.

What I'd like to know is could the higher social abilities of black retards compared to white retards be explained by a higher prevalence of autism in the general white population versus the black population anyway?

If not, then your posts in this thread would suggest that at least in whites, being low functioning is a risk factor in developing autism in the first place.
It's not a direct contradiction, but it does act against your previous statement that autism is overdiagnosed in low functioning individuals.

I would hope that if being low functioning is a risk factor for developing autism, it only goes that way and not the other (ie that being autistic or having a family history of autism increases the likelihood of being low functioning).

>>1174
*low functioning population

>>1174
Autistic spectrum disorders are seeing an overdiagnosis across the board compared to the historical rate, but it is happening, in this era, disproportionately for the lowest-functioning of the autistic strata, vis-a-vis the relative high-functioning autism diagnosis rate for this historical era of record. That is to say, while both are being over-diagnosed, the high-functioning are less so (and actually fairly close to parity; the remainder of the overdiagnosis contingent is just noise from mis-detecting what could actually be schizophrenics and sociopaths). Therefore there is not as much of a contradiction than you might think there exists in my statements. It would stand that this contextual aspect of my observations was not explained sufficiently, though I have written about it before (The Wisdom of Autphag PDF).

It would still be explained by the historical rates of diagnosis, for which White diagnosis recipients outstripped Blacks, the higher levels of autism vis-a-vis Blacks in Whites, across the IQ scale. Average Autism Quotient (another Cohen-invented metric) for Whites > Blacks throughout the curve, with the difference only really decreasing slightly for intellect.

Social dysfunction is best noted at both extremes of the curve. Black geniuses, for what few exist, don't tend to have near the rate of mental illness or social introversion that White geniuses do, noted in a study of two groups of Harvard students, can't remember who it was done by. So while a comorbidity between retardation and autism might be noted, I think it's over-emphasized, with the comorbidity between social disfunctioning in general, and genius, never emphasized, for it would indict something negative about it, and something overly positive about autism which runs against the current narrative of its demonisation.

I hope this explains my stance sufficiently.

>>1177
There's still one thing to be tidies up though.

In the studies referenced earlier in this thread, they were observing children who had tested IQ and attained the same score, yet were behaving differently.
That was the baseline. If The white kid/s also had a diagnosis of autism (whether actual autism or falling in line with your purported misdiagnoses, for which they'd be a prime candidate), that ought to have been noted, yet it wasn't.

Either white kids as described in the test weren't initially diagnosed with autism when they ought to have been, which would infer that in whites a low IQ is a risk factor for having autism, or - and I think this is where you'll agree with me - it isn't autism, isn't anything to do with autism, but something completely different going on that is a different social condition solely related to having a low IQ.
This wouldn't contradict your assertion that there are a high rate of autism misdiagnoses.
It would also be corroborated if there is little disparity between actual autism diagnoses per capita in black and white populations (accounting for alleged low-functioning black autists too).

>>1179
*tidied

should really proof read.

>>1179
That it 'isn't anything to do with autism' is and is not correct. It's where we should consider the boundary between iatrogenic autism and evolutionary autism, which is not so much a subtype of medicinal autism, as it refers to the European tendency to systematize, as has evolved over European migration and Neanderthalic interbreeding.(see RDOS' theory) This is the background AQ where Whites lie over and above Blacks, who did not evolve these traits for they were never pressured to. In a climatically unchallenging environment, such as the hot tropics, no forward planning is needed, no micromanagement is needed, and over-empathization/over-spiritualization (I discussed the difference between the two yesterday on Skype with you) needn't be deadly in such a situation, and in fact may be advantageous (running like a scared-as-shit pussy due to flight-or-fight from lions, etc). None of this contradicts your assertion directly (it's not really autism as such), but we should really stop regarding it as one entity rather than a model with 5 different subtypes. This is why I hate the DSM-5 btw. We were making so much progress with differentiating autism and then they had set us back by homogenizing the condition.

It could never be corroborated with a discovery of AQ parity between Blacks and Whites because the evolutionary precept for the development of both neurotypes definitely points to exposure to climati conditions propensitous to autism for the latter, and conditions propensitous to extreme-neurofemininity for the latter. I still hold by this theory very closely and it's ground that I refuse to cede. What I entirely accept though is that, even for these retarded kids, the AQ is far beneath the cut-off for autism, and the distribution may work out that there aren't really more high-AQ people on the retarded end of the curve than the average or genius ends (narrower AQ distribution for retards).

>>1183
>we should really stop regarding it as one entity rather than a model with 5 different subtypes. This is why I hate the DSM-5 btw. We were making so much progress with differentiating autism and then they had set us back by homogenizing the condition.

This was a point worth making.
Putting everyone with autism on a spectrum despite the disparity between them implies that their vastly different conditions were caused by a single factor, rather than multiple factors compounded on autism.

Autism is autism, to its own varying degrees. Anything that can't be explained by autism in an otherwise mentally healthy person with a high IQ should be explained separately (either as an intellectual disability, as retardation is apparently now called, or sociopathy, schizophrenia or anything else that may be compounded on it).

>>1185
It's been long established that the 'spectrum' is a political rather than a diagnostic entity. Just look at how the neurodiversity movement was so instrumental in employing it as a rheotircal technique in their ideological peddling of the condition's legitimacy as a 'style of life' or something, rather than a disorder or something more substantial as a genetically variant mutation of some nature.

A huge question mark should be drawn over such imperatively made statements as 'autism is autism', with the question that should instead be asked being 'Is autism, in fact, autism?' I think we will have, as academia's resources are directed more to deconstructing the preconceptions surrounding its foundations, a new renaissance in the research of its causes in considering such a proposal as 'autism might not, in fact, be contiguous'; or to say more simply, 'autism is not autism, for autism is not a monolithic entity.'

That's why I'd like to do with the label altogether! But then what would we go back to describing it as? The pre-Kannerian terminology didn't do it much service. So it remains a convenient label until our understanding improves; the problem is that people slip in complacence with their present understandings when that isn't actually bringing them to any progress towards solid conclusions as much as it is letting them stay arrogant in their certainty.

>>1187
>A huge question mark should be drawn over such imperatively made statements as 'autism is autism', with the question that should instead be asked being 'Is autism, in fact, autism?'

Of course, and scrapping the idea of the spectrum would help this. When the autistic spectrum covers low functioning autistics, for example, a psych may only diagnose them with low functioning autism, rather than autism PLUS another disorder.
If they do that enough, then they start to see the diagnostic criteria for that other disorder as being representative of autism instead, which is where you get your misdiagnoses from.

As for doing away with the label… I'm not sure. Autism has kind of stuck, especially now they have scrapped Aspergers for high functioning autism.

Maybe we should just be calling it Aspergers then?
So a "high functioning autistic" would simply be someone with Aspergers, whereas a "low functioning autistic" would be diagnosed with Aspergers plus whatever PC name they have for an intellectual disorder too - that is to say, they wouldn't be "low functioning" if it weren't for something else outwith autism, so you could presume that if they didn't have that intellectual disorder they would instead have been diagnosed with just Aspergers… prior to the DSM-V.

>>1188
Scrapping the spectrum's an imperative. It was never a legitimate scientific observation but a stupid politicism invented by Grandin et al.

Multifaceted models involving different subtypes of autism more better reflect the incontiguity of the condition.

Low-functioning autism, in defense of the criteria, by implication referred to 'autism + <IQ-70', plus an inability to talk (actually if the IQ was close enough to 70 and they could talk, oftentimes they'd have been diagnosed with just classic autism). Your proposal to stave misdiagnoses by limiting the professionals in their diagnostic inspecificity so that they do not ascertain the "spectrum" in terms of that impression is never going to work though, as your plea falls on deaf ears: they do that deliberately so that they can maintain their disdain of the condition.

I only suggest doing away with the label because so much baggage has been intertwined with recent associations with the condition as:
- being similar to sociopathy (thanks to Cho and Elliot being associated with the symptom of 'empathy deficiencies', when those aren't the kind of 'empathy deficiencies' described by the criteria anyway)
- being a manifestation of neuromasculinity (disproven as early as 2012 yet; MRI brain-scans were done, paradoxically, neural-hypermasculinity only affected the women with autism, while male autistic brains are just eumale)
- being similar to retardation; the only thing we often share with them is processing speed and executive functioning deficiencies, which aren't noticed in day-to-day activity anyway, and not everyone has scores for that in the retardation range, even if it is lower than their whole-scale IQ

We should definitely refrain from calling it Aspergers. Asperger described a unique set of symptoms which is so distinct as to describe a condition that isn't even within the continuity of autism except for vague symptoms of social dysfunctioning, as well as Asperger by definition conferring an above-average functioning level.

Therefore combinations like "Asperger + retardation" fail to work.

The DSM-5 criteria definitely need addressed though. Homogenizing the condition will have disastrous effects for its sufferers. It'll further solidify the association of autism with retardation, sociopathy, and hypermasculinity, which are popular misconceptions, which have of course been manifest in direct expressions of disdain towards us, based on the perception of us as being slow, unempathetic, and aggressive, respectively.

Shaking off adages of 'dangerous retardation' would be the first step in the reformation of the diagnostic criteria, which was only conducted as a political correctness measure anyway, which clearly backfires. We can't reliably expect people to revise their understanding. There will always be neurotypical spastics (Jason Scott) who think it in their infinite wisdom to be "bastions of reason" when it comes to slaining the autistic, only to show how toxic they really are to its awareness, along with the "autism awareness" movements themselves (this word, 'awareness', has a meaning specific to leftist political epistemology, which I'll proceed to explain later).

>>1191
>We should definitely refrain from calling it Aspergers. Asperger described a unique set of symptoms which is so distinct as to describe a condition that isn't even within the continuity of autism except for vague symptoms of social dysfunctioning, as well as Asperger by definition conferring an above-average functioning level.

>Therefore combinations like "Asperger + retardation" fail to work.

This was meant to be another point I was contending, even if I didn't articulate it.

Just now, the diagnostic criteria focus mainly or even solely on the symptoms, rather than the risk factors and mechanisms which cause those symptoms to manifest.

That doesn't make sense to me, especially considering there may be multiple causes of a given symptom so that one condition may be analogous to another. Testing for symptoms in this way muddies the waters - we should be concentrating more on the causes at the roots of these conditions for diagnostic purposes.