User Tag List

First 4567 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 67

  1. #51
    Let me count the ways Betty Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7W6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    4,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    ^Likewise
    The way i see it is your point was that i was basing an argument solely on personal experience. You said over and over again that i did not use a valid link.
    My point was that i was using both a valid link and personal experience combined. Check the link, see the facts stop whining.
    "We knew he was someone who had a tragic flaw, that's where his greatness came from"

  2. #52
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GemPOPGem View Post
    The way i see it is your point was that i was basing an argument solely on personal experience. You said over and over again that i did not use a valid link.
    My point was that i was using both a valid link and personal experience combined. Check the link, see the facts stop whining.
    Or you could just learn to communicate your ideas effectively.

    When your counter has zero links in it, and your whole response is "I think this because I experience this", then it makes your argument to appear as though it is indeed based solely on personal experience.

    You do this in post 10 (though it does have a link, the link does not support your stance that it's not due to diagnostic critera). It's a link, and it's valid, but it does not tackle the issue that I'm talking about here: is there really a rise in ASD cases, or is it just due to an enhanced ability to diagnose the disorder?

    You also do this in 23. No link, only anecdote.

    Until post 39, you did not provide any outside evidence that diagnostic criteria is not the cause for the rise in ASD cases.

    And again, I'm really not sure why you are making this personal and telling me to "stop whining." I'm not whining, simply pointing out a fact that your argument was pretty weak until about post 39, as until then, you provided us with zero data that tackled the diagnostic criteria issue; you only provided personal anecdote. Go back and look at your posts if you don't believe me.

  3. #53
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InsatiableCuriosity View Post
    OMG! Where do you live?? That sounds like something out of an old movie! :steam:
    I live in Finland. But then, Finland is like an old movie.

  4. #54

    Default

    Here are more articles to consider....

    Autism on the Rise - Is Autism on the Rise (It is important to note the history of the research too. Articles from 2005 were before the CDC comprehensive study, for instance. Also, studies that look at dates before the decrease in incidents will also have to be put into perspective)

    The Autism Epidemic (another brief history)


    Of course, the U.C. Davis study (done in 2009 looking at 1990 to 2000) that GemPopGem linked comes to the conclusion that the epidemic was real.

    This study in 2010 comes to the opposite conclusion
    Study: Social influence playing role in surging autism diagnoses | e! Science News

    The debate goes on.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  5. #55
    Let me count the ways Betty Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7W6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    4,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post

    This study in 2010 comes to the opposite conclusion
    Study: Social influence playing role in surging autism diagnoses | e! Science News

    The debate goes on.
    I found the actual study that that article was based on, it opens with this

    "Despite a plethora of studies, we do not know why autism incidence has increased rapidly over the past two decades. Using California data, this study shows that children living very close to a child previously diagnosed with autism are more likely to be diagnosed with autism. An underlying social influence mechanism involving information diffusion drives this result, contributing to 16% of the increase in prevalence over 2000–2005. We eliminate competing explanations (i.e., residential sorting, environmental toxicants, and viral transmission) through seven tests and show that information diffusion simultaneously contributed to the increased prevalence, spatial clustering, and decreasing age of diagnosis."


    Also this....

    "but what is not really debatable is that the increase in autism incidence is very large"

    The actual study is here

    University of Chicago Press - Cookie absent
    "We knew he was someone who had a tragic flaw, that's where his greatness came from"

  6. #56
    Let me count the ways Betty Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7W6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    4,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Or you could just learn to communicate your ideas effectively.

    When your counter has zero links in it, and your whole response is "I think this because I experience this", then it makes your argument to appear as though it is indeed based solely on personal experience.

    You do this in post 10 (though it does have a link, the link does not support your stance that it's not due to diagnostic critera). It's a link, and it's valid, but it does not tackle the issue that I'm talking about here: is there really a rise in ASD cases, or is it just due to an enhanced ability to diagnose the disorder?

    You also do this in 23. No link, only anecdote.

    Until post 39, you did not provide any outside evidence that diagnostic criteria is not the cause for the rise in ASD cases.

    And again, I'm really not sure why you are making this personal and telling me to "stop whining." I'm not whining, simply pointing out a fact that your argument was pretty weak until about post 39, as until then, you provided us with zero data that tackled the diagnostic criteria issue; you only provided personal anecdote. Go back and look at your posts if you don't believe me.
    I am getting frustrated, i appologise if my responses echo this.

    The article linked in post 10 states this

    "The study does not answer the question as to why autism is increasing. But the national data don't show a decrease in other learning disabilities. Trends for mental retardation and speech and language impairment remained unchanged.

    This suggests the increase in autism is not the result of an across-the-board increase in special education classification, say the researchers."

    I put it to you again, that the link does respond to the questions you pose.


    (link 23 was a response to Ivy's post regarding my earlier post of personal experience, i simply extended my personal reasoning in this post, it was a direct reply)
    Last edited by Betty Blue; 06-23-2010 at 04:20 AM. Reason: Adding more info
    "We knew he was someone who had a tragic flaw, that's where his greatness came from"

  7. #57
    Let me count the ways Betty Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7W6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    4,797

    Default

    Also the link in the op does address incidence rise in asd, it also addresses wider diagnostic criteria.

    From the link in the op

    "Autism spectrum disorder – which can range from mild to severe – affects nearly 1 per cent of children and the incidence has increased dramatically in recent years, partly as a result of wider diagnostic criteria and improved recognition of the problem. Autism tends to run in families and is known to have strong genetic and environmental components."

    Autism and genetics: A breakthrough that sheds light on a medical mystery - Science, News - The Independent


    Please note the second bolded which states "partly", the most recent studies show this could be up to 16% as indicated by the study in the American Journal of Sociology.
    ygolo posted a link to an article referencing the study, i posted a link to the actual study.
    So we now have a maximum percentage of which wider diagnostics can play a part in the incidence rates of asd. This certainly does not counter the evolution theory as i have always believed there are other factors which do contribute but do not account for the majority of the rise. I have said this in another thread but i should make it clear here also.

    I'm not sure how to link the post but i'll quote it

    "I'm interested in an entirely different theory. Autism has risen by approx 600% in the last 20 years. You can account for prehaps a 100-200% increase due to diagnosis becomming easier to access, the range of ASD that is now being diagnosed and the fact that many people are more willing to get diagnosis for themselves or children."

    It was in the RF and Autism thread post 17. I quoted approx 600% in the last 20 years as opposed to 400% in the last 10-15 years in my op in this thread.
    Reports vary because they are localised or to specific counties/countries and also the dates of the studies and what time period they cover.
    "We knew he was someone who had a tragic flaw, that's where his greatness came from"

  8. #58
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    We form hypotheses based off of anecdotes, sure. However, real science does not rely on personal anecdotes for evidence. It relies on repeated, controlled experiments and statistical analysis.
    "Real Science" with controlled studies is the perfect tool to study very specific, explicitly defined problems. Nobody makes ancadotal claims about
    bacterial growth rates on highly dextrose containing media spiked with amp or if a .2M NaCl solution enhances crystallization rates of GDP:CMP cytidylyltransferase in the ligand bound form.

    But the more complex the system becomes, the harder it can be to define exactly what needs to be observed or controlled when collecting data. In studies of medicine of disease states, there can be massive influence based upon genetic heterogeneity of the population under study for instance.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Aside from the fact that I really don't agree with the bolded, this alleged skilled area of ENFPs (and lack of skill in NTs) has absolutely nothing to do with how credible GemPOP's assertion was.

    Regardless of how good ENFPs or NTs or anyone is at behavioral trends through people watching, controlled, structured, scientific experiments are still better and thus the only reasonable form of evidence we can use in these kinds of discussions.
    I am ambivalent about this particular discussion-but what caught my eye was the overt dismissal of gem's observations as not being "data". It interests me on a more meta level.

    I would argue that the individual observations become increasingly important, the more complex the system under study becomes. The more fuzzy and ill defined the problem, the more people contaminated it is, the more likely the parameters used to define the collected "data" were flawed-thus the more room for error.

    Also-Fi and Fe will view a system under study in a way that Ti and Te will not-evenly a technical problem. If your problem is a people problem, NFs will find those trends before an NT will, very often. Not bashing NTs in anyway, just suggesting to use caution before overt dismissal of an NF observation. Ti will find it a bit repulsive and try and push it away as it is "messy", yet it could be the key to understanding the problem.

    But yes, once the problem has become very well defined-I also would then default to controlled studies with large numbers. But it is a continuum and you need to understand where you are on that scale and have an in depth understanding of the flaws in your data before making that call.

  9. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GemPOPGem View Post
    I found the actual study that that article was based on, it opens with this

    "Despite a plethora of studies, we do not know why autism incidence has increased rapidly over the past two decades. Using California data, this study shows that children living very close to a child previously diagnosed with autism are more likely to be diagnosed with autism. An underlying social influence mechanism involving information diffusion drives this result, contributing to 16% of the increase in prevalence over 2000–2005. We eliminate competing explanations (i.e., residential sorting, environmental toxicants, and viral transmission) through seven tests and show that information diffusion simultaneously contributed to the increased prevalence, spatial clustering, and decreasing age of diagnosis."


    Also this....

    "but what is not really debatable is that the increase in autism incidence is very large"

    The actual study is here

    University of Chicago Press - Cookie absent
    I think everyone agrees that there was an increase in incidence. The questions are: why there was an increase in incidence, in what time frame it happened, and whether or not the increase has stopped.

    I frankly can't decide because studies come to different conclusions.

    The 2010 sociological study suggests that 16% increase was due to spreading social awareness of autism. But that does not really rule out diagnostic critireon.

    Also, note the dates they were researching were from 2000-2005. This contradicts somewhat the about.com article's mention of the CDC study.

    All I am trying to say, is that the research seems inconclusive at best.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  10. #60
    Let me count the ways Betty Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7W6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    4,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I think everyone agrees that there was an increase in incidence. The questions are: why there was an increase in incidence, in what time frame it happened, and whether or not the increase has stopped.

    I frankly can't decide because studies come to different conclusions.

    The 2010 sociological study suggests that the increase was due to social awareness of autism.

    Also, note the dates they were researching were from 2000-2005. From 2000-2005, there was an increase in incidents, but in 2006, according to the CDC, in the about.com article, there was a decrease.

    All I am trying to say, is that the research seems inconclusive at best.
    No, there were people debating weather there was a rise at all. Their argument was that there was no actual rise in cases just in diagnosis.

    The sociological study suggests 16% of the rise is due to an increase in awareness and the sample given is california, one single state. It is a large area and a large study and i give it merit. I had not at any point said that an increase in awareness would not contribute to a percentage of new diagnosis, infact i cited an old post i made in which i gave the idea a very generous slice of percentage pie.
    However it is inconclusive like many previous studies.

    The whole point of this thread was to throw up a theory as mentioned in the OP and to get responses based on that theory.
    If you are undecided thats fine.
    "We knew he was someone who had a tragic flaw, that's where his greatness came from"

Similar Threads

  1. If You Could Give a Gift to The Above Poster, what would it be?
    By Jacques Le Paul in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 07-19-2017, 10:37 AM
  2. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-15-2016, 08:49 PM
  3. What's this? What's this? Gay Scouts, oh gee, officially? Could it be?
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-28-2013, 09:08 PM
  4. Replies: 88
    Last Post: 08-28-2012, 09:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO