Agreeing with other comments: this is a very good, timely piece.
My nephew lived with significant autism. He was in good circumstances, but it took its toll. What we need -- oh, so often in our lives -- is clear and careful thinking, and this article is an example.
Great points here, I agree with everything you've said. I've also seen psychologists argue that the more expansive notion of autism is "more accurate". In other words, psychologists have gotten better at recognizing autism, and therefore more kinds of people are being diagnosed.
But this argument hasn't made sense to me, because autism is just defined by its symptoms, not a set of physical markers. And the main reason that people are so interested in studying autism is because of how debilitating and life-changing it is. So if people with mere social anxiety or anti-social traits are being diagnosed with autism, then it defeats the purpose of specializing in studying autism.
I think you could even accept that some traits probably are a mild variation of autistic ones but simply say that it does not meet a standard for clinical diagnosis. If the person is still troubled by them, they might find techniques that help autistic people useful but cannot be said to have a disorder.
This is a good article. I too am from a family where many people have subclinical autistic traits and “invisible” difficulties.
Wonderful article, as always — and well-chosen photo to illustrate it!
Oh, my caption disappeared. Have replaced it now. Tis my offspring.
That I guessed!
If I could illustrate them all with my child, cat or dog, that would be ideal!
Agreeing with other comments: this is a very good, timely piece.
My nephew lived with significant autism. He was in good circumstances, but it took its toll. What we need -- oh, so often in our lives -- is clear and careful thinking, and this article is an example.
Great points here, I agree with everything you've said. I've also seen psychologists argue that the more expansive notion of autism is "more accurate". In other words, psychologists have gotten better at recognizing autism, and therefore more kinds of people are being diagnosed.
But this argument hasn't made sense to me, because autism is just defined by its symptoms, not a set of physical markers. And the main reason that people are so interested in studying autism is because of how debilitating and life-changing it is. So if people with mere social anxiety or anti-social traits are being diagnosed with autism, then it defeats the purpose of specializing in studying autism.
I think you could even accept that some traits probably are a mild variation of autistic ones but simply say that it does not meet a standard for clinical diagnosis. If the person is still troubled by them, they might find techniques that help autistic people useful but cannot be said to have a disorder.