Hacker News Reader

Comment by nicoburns | Hacker News Reader

> But it's been a great disservice to individuals with Autism 'proper' to be grouped (even if just by name) in a spectrum with folks with such mild issues.

I feel like we need to both group and separate.

We need to group because everyone across the spectrum has things in common, and a lot of the accommodations that "mild" and "severe" autistics need be similar (for example, needing quiet spaces), and we shouldn't dismiss these needs in those with "mild" autism because they're coping with things better than others. I feel like we also shouldn't dismiss how helpful the insight gained from autistics who are more easily able to communicate might be in determining appropriate care for those who are less able to communicate.

We need to separate because some autistics have needs that others don't. And it is of course important that we recognise that and give the more disabling impairments the extra attention they deserve.

View on HN

I feel this too. People have different needs. I had an ex who despaired at the idea of marrying me because she didn’t want kids with autism. To me, I’m fine, my kids would be fine, and I don’t want any stigma or to be seen as defective. I just want the same respect anyone else gets, and an ounce of understanding. Other people, however, really struggle, either themselves or to help someone close to them. They don’t want their situation trivialized, and need effective help. Striking this balance will take a mindful culture, and the field can help much in guiding that, along with the other benefits they bring with research and interventions and such.

> We need to group because everyone across the spectrum has things in common

Do they really? One of the articles on here recently was about how Autism is this gigantic smorgasbord of often very different symptoms and that every Autism disgnosis pulls from a different palette of symptoms.

That sounds a lot like psychologists decided to call "Not Neurotypical" (however you define that) as "Autism" and then dumped everything into the category.

> That sounds a lot like psychologists decided to call "Not Neurotypical" (however you define that) as "Autism" and then dumped everything into the category.

"Neurodiverse" includes a lot more conditions, such as ADHD, developmental speech disorders, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, dysnomia, intellectual disability, Tourette syndrome, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and antisocial personality disorder.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurodiversity&ol...

I agree with you in general. I think over time fields that are "fuzzy" with definitions, like psychology, will hopefully add additional layers of specificity to a number of neuro diseases/ailments/conditions. In the end if you took any condition out of the DSM each human probably falls some where along a spectrum for each one and the ultimate combination is what makes us "us" as individuals.

I could certainly see autism be rated on a 1-10 scale of severity to provide additional clarity or each one of those ten points on the gradient receiving a new diagnostic name. Going further we could probably have a broader scale that includes severe autism on one side and severe empathy on the other. The empathetic traits aren't as well studied even though being severely empathetic can also have a host of social challenges.

Please don't consider autism as opposite to empathy. Autistic individuals are often highly empathetic. It's just that they don't express it in the same way as neurotypical people and it can get lost in translation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com