Rhwawn comments on How to tell apart science from pseudo-science in a field you don't know ? - Less Wrong

18 Post author: kilobug 02 September 2012 10:25AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (70)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: James_Miller 02 September 2012 03:54:58PM 13 points [-]

To the best of my knowledge (and I've looked) there is not a single scientific long-term randomized study showing the effectiveness of any type of treatment for autism. This means that when deciding on the best way to help the kid you are going to have to rely on the judgment and intuition of family, friends and special needs specialists. Besides the normal biases the huge problem with doing this is that as an autistic child gets older you would expect him, in an absolute sense, to make improvements in many metrics (just as typical kids do) even if whatever special stuff was being done for him had absolutely no impact on his condition. Another problem is that, based on my observations at least, the women who devote their careers to the needs of "special children" tend to be of the very happy/uplifting/optimistic types which undoubtedly causes them to have a more positive assessment of treatment than should be justified and this bias outlook negatively impacts the research that makes use of the subjective judgments of autistic professionals.

Rather than spending time reading about autism you can probably better help this child by playing with him and doing stuff for his parents so they have more time to play with him, although ignore this advice if you enjoy reading about autism and so your doing so isn't a cost.

Comment author: Rhwawn 03 September 2012 12:50:41AM 4 points [-]

To the best of my knowledge (and I've looked) there is not a single scientific long-term randomized study showing the effectiveness of any type of treatment for autism.

Why isn't there? There would seem to have been more than enough time & funding for at least one. Is there some more subtle problem here?

(I'm thinking a scenario like "parents of autistic kids are constantly trying new approaches both quack and genuine, and would refuse to stop this, thereby making the results worthless; and this is foreseeable in advance by any would-be experimenters.")

Comment author: CharlesR 03 September 2012 10:33:15AM *  0 points [-]

No one wants to be in the control group.

Comment author: Rhwawn 05 September 2012 03:19:13PM 1 point [-]

Do you know that, or are you guessing?

Comment author: drethelin 03 September 2012 05:29:12AM 0 points [-]

Because there's no cure?

Comment author: James_Miller 03 September 2012 07:00:39AM 2 points [-]

But there could still be studies demonstrating that some treatments had no effect.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 04 September 2012 07:34:29PM *  1 point [-]

That raises the question - did that opening sentence of the head reply mean 'showing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of any method', or 'showing a method to be effective'?

Comment author: James_Miller 04 September 2012 07:59:22PM 0 points [-]

I meant to imply "effectiveness or ineffectiveness"

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 05 September 2012 01:38:36PM 0 points [-]

Thanks