Talk:Autism and pseudoscience

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon pseudoscience.svg

This Pseudoscience related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png --PalMD-Goatspeed! 17:18, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

There was a great article in Science today about how Autism’s Cause May Reside in Abnormalities at the Synapse. 13 JULY 2007 VOL 317 SCIENCE 190 --TimS 09:49, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I'll never forget Sarah Palin's diatribe on the French butterfly thingy as a waste of taxpayers money on science spending. It actually led to significant research on autism treatment. Its a good example of why stupid people should stay out of science (And that includes me, with my spectacularly inaccurate portrayal of the 'French Butterfly Thingy') MarcusCicero 19:19, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Hehe, yeah, I think it was fruit flies ;) Someone added something about the SPincident to the fly article. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:33, 19 November 2008 (EST)


Is it ok if I move this to Essay namespace? By the formatting of the title I feel this is a better essay than article. --AP 03:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's an article. Why do you think it's an "essay"? It's not a one-person project expressing their opinion... ħumanUser talk:Human 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Article. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, AP, you realize that on RW many of our articles are "essay-like"? And that is ok here? This isn't WP, where original thought is frowned upon. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. -____- AP (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
It's difficult to draw the line, as often articles have sections written in the first person. But generally, an essay is an opinion piece "belonging" to one user, the articles have been edited repeatedly to the point where they're more than just what an individual thinks. Even if it is a little preachy, doesn't have an corresponding Wikipedia article or isnt' even a non-abstract subject, it can still be an article, rather than an essay. Hope this clears it up a little. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 19:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, articles shouldn't be in the first person. Whenever I come across an "I" I change it to we or rewrite the sentence. Oh, and no need to apologize, AP. You made a suggestion, and we explained why it wasn't necessary is all. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The title, though, screams "I'm an essay", at least in my opinion. Ahh, the creativity! AP (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome Complex[edit]

Ah, another person attempts to attack and ridicule those with Asperger's. How daring. You fucking inferior filth. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Sorry... but where do you get that from? Nobody is attacking or ridiculing anybody. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 11:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It does seem a rather bizaire comment.--BobNot Jim 11:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I actually have Asperger's, and I don't see any insults on this page (and by "this page" I'm including both the main page and the talk page). What are you talking about? Edit: If anything, the article is ridiculing cranks who claim that vaccines cause autism and/or claim to be able to cure it. --GastonRabbit (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

User Hamilton[edit]

Can someone tell this young wippersnapper that he cannot delete factual statements from a page. Unless he denies the facts in which case a talk page discussion can usually resolve the dispute. Thanks. Dirk Steele (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You've admitted to having a condition called "Oppositional defiant disorder", which has the requirement of being a minor. As in, under 16. Since I'm in college, that makes you the kid. Please try to pay attention. And I seriously doubt that your position is based on science--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You seriously doubt Popper. You are the crank. Of course I have ODD - I distrust the power of authority. Don't you? Or are you a wimp pussie? (ODD does not have the requirement of being a minor. If you could be bothered to actually read the DSM you might learn a little. You make a habit of being wrong. Stop it now!) Dirk Steele (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Popper is no longer the accepted authority on what is or is not science, and you have admitted this. And the definition of ODD includes the phrase "childhood behavior" because it's a childhood disorder.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Examples of what may or may not be pseudoscientific approaches to the study of autism[edit]

One approach to the study of autism is to frame it in terms of human evolutionary development. The autism spectrum may represent not disease, but an ancient way of life for a minority of ancestral humans, a theory proposed by Jared Reser, a graduate student in the USC Psychology Department. [1]

Another is to diagnose patients without benefit of a personal examination. Autism expert Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge University [2] suggests, controversially,that Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton may both have had Asperger syndrome. [3]

Though neither of the above are more than controversial suggestions both appear reasonable enough so serious people may consider them. Those two suggestions show the difficulty of telling controversial speculation from pseudoscience in this field.

The above was in the article but isn't clearly relevant to autism and quackery. I've put in onto the talk page.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Parents and Biggotry[edit]

I'd like to raise this issue, that affects me personally, as an asperger. It is pressed in the article the character of parents, being desperate over a chronic condition, but there's also a huge, HUGE load of biggotry in their behaviour and their tendency to pathologize their very sons for not keeping up to their expectations and personal projects. Personal case, my father refused to acknowledge the syndrome until, from my anxiety, I was barely able to sleep at all, and was suffering meltdowns on a daily basis(until then, it was Bach Flowers and Homeopathy, surprisingly to no result!). Upon hitting the asperger community online, I found out that in the national scene, the predominant political narrative wasn't based on asperger or autists' issues, but on frustrated parents', who blamed vaccines for having stupid/sick/dead-weight children. It was much easier to blame a global conspiration than to assume that they sucked at parenting or basic empathy. Aspergers gathered around imageboards, or the back alleys of magazines community forums, while parents had ONGs, blogs, and the main alleys of online magazines and their forums.

This point cannot be stressed enough, considering that the Geirs (overly known cranks) are quoted several too many times more than Jim Sinclairs (or any other autism porte-parole), after all, compatible, economically able, socially competent parents have infinitly more power and capital to draw their political anguish, than their pathologized, stigmatized, legaly marginalized, and spread progeny. RationalWiki could take an stance on this issue since it relates to biggotry, authoritarianism, subtle power abuse, and media portrayal. --Tasurinchi (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Temple Grandin[edit]

Somebody needs to stop treating this woman like a hero (and that includes the "community") because she promotes vaccine denialism as well and everybody acts like she's the greatest thing since sliced bread because she likes animals or whatever. Steven Pinker once tried to call her out on her BS, but was ultimately too polite to do anything. Burkean (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)