SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
ScienceDaily summarizes a new study (paywalled) published a few days ago in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.
It is the first study to find a link between autistic traits and the creative thinking processes.
People with high levels of autistic traits are more likely to produce unusually creative ideas, new research confirms. While they found that people with high autistic traits produced fewer responses when generating alternative solutions to a problem - known as 'divergent thinking' - the responses they did produce were more original and creative.
The research...looked at people who may not have a diagnosis of autism but who have high levels of behaviours and thought processes typically associated with the condition. This builds on previous research suggesting there may be advantages to having some traits associated with autism without necessarily meeting criteria for diagnosis.
People with high autistic traits...are typically considered to be more rigid in their thinking, so the fact that the ideas they have are more unusual or rare is surprising. This difference may have positive implications for creative problem solving.
They might not run through things in the same way as someone without these traits would to get the typical ideas, but go directly to less common ones. In other words, the associative or memory-based route to being able to think of different ideas is impaired, whereas the specific ability to produce unusual responses is relatively unimpaired or superior.
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Tuesday August 18 2015, @10:00PM
The main driver of the increase in frequency is that there's more awareness of the condition than there was in the past.
CITATION NEEDED!
This is like saying, the main driver of cancer is awareness of the disease. On the contrary, it is not. The main driver of cancer is that people live longer. In the past, before advanced imaging techniques, it was still possible to diagnose cancer. You know, at the autopsy! But it remains that most people think that increase in cancer rates is due to awareness instead of longevity driven mostly by antibiotics - people tend not to die from bacterial infections anymore.
Autism is NOT something that's been driven by awareness. It is NOT something that magically started happening because people become "aware" of it. Let me give you an example from modern times about autism. Take the Somali population. Autism does not exist in Somalia for all intends and purposes. The rate is near 0. They also have little access to modern medicines like oral antibiotics. Now, because of war, Somalis have fled their nation and settled in the other nations. Somehow, the autism rate of resettled Somalis is running at more than 3% rate! That's an epidemic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/health/study-links-autism-and-somalis-in-minneapolis.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
So, this is clearly NOT genetic. This is clearly NOT related to "awareness". This is something that appeared in last 50 years. And what has appeared in last 50 years that is used more in developed nations than poor nations without doctors?
http://cogentbenger.com/autism/ [cogentbenger.com]
http://treatautism.ca/2011/12/08/the-nature-of-things-autism-enigma/ [treatautism.ca]
http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episodes/autism-enigma [www.cbc.ca]
See this if you have any beliefs that Autism is something not real or that it is somehow genetic. This explains why there was no Autism 100 years ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @10:43PM
Actually, when you speak of the social 'sciences' and their constant need to redefine what qualifies as a mental illness or similar, awareness does play a part. The social 'sciences' are filled with subjectivity, so they can't really be compared to other fields.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @10:44PM
I'm sorry, but citation needed applies to you.
But I don't mean "Show me some supporting evidence," I mean "Show me supporting peer-reviewed medical research that outright states your position."
You appear to have carefully picked your evidence to support your position, and discarded all else: you have engaged in no research.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday August 18 2015, @10:48PM
Wow, are you seriously suggesting that a lack of a diagnosis is the same thing as a lack of a case? Because that's a huge problem. A lot of marginal cases were never diagnosed because the child wasn't quite stupid enough to require testing, they had a marginal IQ, but since it was slightly too high, they wouldn't have qualified for a diagnosis. But, for all practical purposes those kids had autism, they just weren't quite diagnosable as having autism. The least severe cases might not even have been tested in the first place.
Prior to recently, nobody really bothered to look into such cases at all, as there wasn't anything that could be done about it.
As far as the citations go, those are hardly reliable citations to be making. You've got a couple of news programs with no details and a link to a site that provides "natural health care." Doesn't exactly make me have much confidence in the source.
Take a look at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140703125851.htm [sciencedaily.com]
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:52AM
My links were about one specific program that you should watch. If you want some real research, there is plenty, but gut flora is "icky" so much less research happens there. It's not like sexy gene sequencing.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gut-bacteria-may-play-a-role-in-autism/ [scientificamerican.com]
http://www.nature.com/news/bacterium-can-reverse-autism-like-behaviour-in-mice-1.14308 [nature.com]
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20130703/lower-bacteria-levels-in-gut-may-be-tied-to-autism-in-kids [webmd.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Glida7/autism_and_bacteria [wikipedia.org] - look at some references there
And YES, I'm saying that Autism almost did not exist in the past before *oral* antibiotics. While there maybe genetic reasons for some autism cases, it is by far overshadowed by the environmental reason.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:48AM
Earliest documented treatment for autism-like disorder dates back to the late 1780's, the term "autism" itself is roughly 100 years old, the use of the term in its modern sense is roughly 70 years old (this use was introduced by Hans Asperger - the first westener who described the syndrome (in 1944) that later would be named after him).
Take a look at Leo Kanner (of "kanner's syndrome"-fame) if you want an explanation of the whole mess surrounding what should be called "autism".
tl;dr
* autism is docemented since more than 200 years
* asperger syndrome for more than 70 year
* both american and german psychiatrists used the term "autism" in the early 1940s.