| > Autism is complicated because it is more a set of descriptions of related symptoms, in which each individual may have more or less of each symptom. From what I understand, autism can't be viewed as a "rating" of better or worse autism. Instead it should be viewed as a gradient of behaviors, individually are considered more or less functional. I guess that's what the article is about, but it doesn't communicate the range as well as your post does. I wonder though, what's the purpose of having such an amorphous definition? The word becomes completely useless the more symptoms it describes. And the more symptoms it describes, the more unlikely it is that they're even at all related in terms of root cause and treatment. And I would think that results in a reduction in research progress. > I agree that it may be more pertinent to create different categories of autism based on the group of symptoms I know little about this topic, but this seems destined to fail and unnecessary. What's wrong with simply describing the actual symptoms? They're clear enough on their own. And boxing them up into a convenient single word diagnosis doesn't seem helpful at this stage of understanding. For example: > There are people who are non-verbal but sign or write perfectly well, what are they considered? I would consider these as people who communicate well via non-verbal methods only. > There are people who are very vocal but speak with an awkward cadence and have mood swings, are they "really autistic"? Drop the autistic binary and just call them people with mood swings. Perhaps clarify that the mood swings can be disruptive and uncontrollable, or if that isn't the case, don't mention it at all because everybody has non-disruptive mood swings and deals with it. The awkward cadence doesn't even require mentioning if they can communicate effectively. > There are people who are verbally eloquent but constantly participate in stim behavior and need constant observation to make sure they clothe, bathe, and feed themselves appropriately, do they have "real autism"? The description stands on its own perfectly well without trying to determine if it's "autism". How does it help to make that distinction? |