[zug_zug]

So I understand the complaint that perhaps there's evidence that things currently classified as autism might be genetically or otherwise differentiable.

However to my mind that simply strengthens the need to have some sort of computerized system for measuring population samples. Removing human subjectivity from the equation will only give us more hard data to identify exactly what correlates with what.

Moreover I think somewhere in your logic you're making this assumption that autism rates can't be going up by a factor of 10+. I think there's no reason to assume that, we've seen other biological conditions (some even covariate with autism such as allergies) increase and let's just take nearsightedness as an example that has grown more than 10x.

In essence, I think it's entirely plausible that autism rates have gone up and tiktok merely happens to be informing people who have very mild symptoms of what's happening -- and to prove or disprove that hypothesis we'd want tests not administered by a biased human.

[faeriechangling]

Here's one approach in a very small study, which I wouldn't call a perfect approach but I think it's still probably a modest incremental improvement on the status quo.

https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/motor-sensory-traits-refin...