Marginalised Researchers In Neurology

I know one or two highly qualified reaearchers who are jealous of Steve Silberman. I myself am not. Basically, he scored a few points in Neurotribes and I welcomed his defence of Asperger's moral standing. However, I'm very aware Steve's book appealed to millions of non autistic, but geeky readers. To those who have mild autism personality characteristics. To others who see the whole issue in the same way as being gay or transgender. My impression over the last 12 years is Americans underestimate how seriously the Asperger children were affected. These were not Peter Parker types as Steve tended to represent his subject matter. So, in fact, the book was seriously critized by genuinely autisic people who felt they were being misrepresented. No, unlike many, I am not jealous of Steve. Whatever I eventually publish won't be remotely as popular but I believe it will dig a lot deeper. Hopefully it will in the end appeal to those who had similar experiences to myself.

davidbanner99@ wrote: I will be releasing a large essay...It will also justify my thread here.

Great. I hope it corrects for the flawed logic you have used thus far in trying to justify this thread.

davidbanner99@ wrote: Whatever I eventually publish won't be remotely as popular but I believe it will dig a lot deeper. Hopefully it will in the end appeal to those who had similar experiences to myself.

I'm sure it will be a success. Given that you hope to appeal to such a very small audience, my suggestion would be to use a personal blog. Or you could just use this forum.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote: I will be releasing a large essay...It will also justify my thread here.

Great. I hope it corrects for the flawed logic you have used thus far in trying to justify this thread.

That in itself was an emotionally driven evaluation. You see the adjective"flawed" projects a certain emotional bias in your judgement. And "justify" implies judgement. That is, "This topic ought not to be shown as I myself disagree with it."

An example of Bleuler's Ambivalence where desire seeks to shape reality.

I am not trying to be funny here. I really do notice how writing reflects thought.
For example, a purely analytical sentence would be:

"I hope it helps me understand or better relate to the explanations you gave which I don't agree with."

This second is free from any emotional bias and purely deductive.

The irony is the original sentence appeals to logic (to not be false) but employs an emotional evaluation.

This may sound like over-focus but Plato is full of such teachings.

davidbanner99@ wrote: You see the adjective"flawed" projects a certain emotional bias

Emotional bias, if any exists, does not change that your logic was flawed.

If you had claimed that 2+1 = 4, that would have been presenting flawed or incorrect math. If using the adjective "flawed" to accurately describe your math is a display of emotional bias...uh, okay...it doesn't make the math any less flawed.

And now you say you will be publishing an essay to help justify this thread. Okay, great, so you need to justify it. Sounds good to me. I look forward to it.

Here is a resource you might find helpful. It discusses those with autism that research autism along with a few groups you might join. Over 150 members.

“Already, autistic academics are making a significant contribution to discoveries about autism. They regularly publish papers in leading academic journals, and they serve as editors of at least four autism journals and as board members and reviewers.”

https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/d ... -research/

"Flawed" if applied to, say, Darwin's theory of evolution would suggest Darwin had suggested a theory that was totally incorrect. I imagine this did happen on a pretty huge scale. The same applies to Georg Ohm.
"Flawed" when applied to my particular post here would suggest I am incorrect (or possibly blinkered) to state current research marginalised people with autism. Not deliberately as such. It was simply the case mostly children were observed in clinics and such children were not developed enough to add perspective.
So far as logic goes, so far you haven't forwarded any names of any researcher at least claiming to be on the autistic spectrum. And as stated, here we need major names that influenced this field of psychology. For my part, I actually quoted you pretty much the entire list.
To defend your position you tend to either ignore or skip over any quotes put forward and simply assert I provided no proof. Where does that lead us? We know Lorna Wing had an austistic daughter but was she herself in the same category? Or Freud, Kanner, Kretchmer...
I will gladly grant you Temple Grandin factors in but, even then, so far as I know she gives public talks on autism but made her name in agriculture. Neither was she directly involved in how the DSM was shaped.
So yes. Modern research into autism lags other sciences in progress and lacks sufficient imput. If such a conclusion is flawed logic I think you should by now have quoted some relevant source text. And some names of people who represent your point of view.

davidbanner99@ wrote:"Flawed" if applied to, say, Darwin's theory of evolution would suggest Darwin had suggested a theory that was totally incorrect.

Flawed does not mean "totally incorrect". Flawed means there is an error. There is an error in your logic.

So far as logic goes, so far you haven't forwarded any names of any researcher at least claiming to be on the autistic spectrum.

Did you even read the previous post?

I provided not just a small list. I provided you are an article that discusses not only publications on autism by those with autism, but they serve as editors, board members, and reviewers. I provided you with groups dedicated to autism research by those with autism.

Here, let me post it again since you seem to have overlooked it...

“Already, autistic academics are making a significant contribution to discoveries about autism. They regularly publish papers in leading academic journals, and they serve as editors of at least four autism journals and as board members and reviewers.”

https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/d ... -research/

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:Here is a resource you might find helpful. It discusses those with autism that research autism along with a few groups you might join. Over 150 members.

“Already, autistic academics are making a significant contribution to discoveries about autism. They regularly publish papers in leading academic journals, and they serve as editors of at least four autism journals and as board members and reviewers.”

https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/d ... -research/

Well, at last you at least quoted something to support your argument.
However, you skipped by my earlier explanation we need major names. I myself am aware there are a few research bloggers who claim to be on the autistic spectrum. Yet, the modern DSM was shaped by the people I quoted as pioneers. I mean, can we quote an electrical engineering post grad and claim such a person influenced electrical science as Tesla and Edison or Georg Ohm?
Of course it is always possible that things are now changing as you claim. Personally I remain skeptical. One snag is official institutions tend to control the flow of research so it's approved by the consensus. I like to think my own studies are totally free from the status quo and far more specialised in a narrow area.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:"Flawed" if applied to, say, Darwin's theory of evolution would suggest Darwin had suggested a theory that was totally incorrect.

Flawed does not mean "totally incorrect". Flawed means there is an error. There is an error in your logic.

So far as logic goes, so far you haven't forwarded any names of any researcher at least claiming to be on the autistic spectrum.

Did you even read the previous post?

I provided not just a small list. I provided you are an article that discusses not only publications on autism by those with autism, but they serve as editors, board members, and reviewers. I provided you with groups dedicated to autism research by those with autism.

Correction. You googled a basic search and then provided that as evidence. As a matter of fact I am already listed on one of these similar groups and was involved in community forums for about 8 years Not the best experience..
We are talking about an area of science that exists today due to major figures in the development of psychology. For your argument to be supported you now need to show what changes have been made to the DSM on account of the new researchers you quote. And to show those you listed are recognised as having been clinical patients at some time in their anamnesis.
If such changes have taken place I'd be happy to say things are changing.
Lengthy experience has shown me the term "autistic" in America would apply to Bill Gates or any nerdy Silicon Valley programmer.

davidbanner99@ wrote: Why, you might ask, should it matter if research is being carried out and published in a system that apparently marginalises those who suffer from autism related disorders?

davidbanner99@ wrote: For your argument to be supported you now need to show what changes have been made to the DSM on account of the new researchers you quote.

Lol...move the goal post much?

I have just provided ample evidence that research is being carried out and published by those with autism. They don't just research and publish. They are editors and reviewers as well.

Now you try to change the standard. Now, suddenly it is not enough to demonstrate that those with autism indeed are researchers that publish, you now claim it must include a demonstration of the DSM being changed.

David, good luck with your struggles. I understand it must be difficult for your work to gain traction.

Likewise could you argue democracy today is more influenced by Harvard researchers than the ancient Athenian philosophers.
Really, I had in mind how psychology became defined and who influenced the DSM. For example, any modern diagnosis of Schizophrenia will still use Bleuler's theory of positive and negative symptomology. As well as the four "A"s. Schizoid Disorder is still attributed to Grunya Sukhareva.
For autistic researchers to really carry imput they need to be very influential in psychology today. And they need to be clinically affected - not just quirky representatives of the American Diversity Movement - a whole debate in itself today.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote: Why, you might ask, should it matter if research is being carried out and published in a system that apparently marginalises those who suffer from autism related disorders?

davidbanner99@ wrote: For your argument to be supported you now need to show what changes have been made to the DSM on account of the new researchers you quote.

Lol...move the goal post much?

I have just provided ample evidence that research is being carried out and published by those with autism. They don't just research and publish. They are editors and reviewers as well.

Now you try to change the standard. Now, suddenly it is not enough to demonstrate that those with autism indeed are researchers that publish, you now claim it must include a demonstration of the DSM being changed.

David, good luck with your struggles. I understand it must be difficult for your work to gain traction.

O.K let's follow through. You googled a basic search and promptly found something to use. Now we need the names of the researchers you state are autistic and highly influential. Once we have the names we can see what influence they have had on the field in question.
The DSM is one fair aspect to raise since Kanner, Wing and Goulde and so on hugely influenced the DSM. I don't think that makes me unreasonable. Influence in any science goes way beyond just being published somewhere.
And be honest. You simply used Google which is full of autism blogger communities. I can even quote you sites such as Aspies Central or Wrong Planet. In fact Wrong Planet is full of programmer types who identify as autism researchers.
Sorry but you need to show how modern psychology has been influenced by people who were genuinely affected.

David's original claim...

davidbanner99@ wrote: Why, you might ask, should it matter if research is being carried out and published in a system that apparently marginalises those who suffer from autism related disorders?

Modifying his claim...

davidbanner99@ wrote: For your argument to be supported you NOW need to show what changes have been made to the DSM on account of the new researchers you quote.

Modifying his claim yet again...

davidbanner99@ wrote: NOW we need the names of the researchers you state are autistic and highly influential.

Nope. I don't need anything David.

You can continue to modify and update your original claim as often as you like to maintain your personal belief that research by those with autism in the field of autism is systemically marginalized. Enjoy that journey.

Note, I'm not saying that some research by those with autism is not rejected. In fact, the very source I cited explains the stigma of autism and that some research by those with autism "may" be rejected for being 'too autistic' or 'not autistic enough'. But that is speculation. There is no evidence of systemic marginalization, in fact it is quite the opposite. Those with autism do conduct research on autism and are publishing. This is hard evidence that is contrary to your claim.

Now you want to move the goal post? That's what you NEED, not me. And it's all good. If you want to move the goal post, fine. Enjoy moving it again and again. Eventually you will make a claim that you can support.