= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I hereby claim that I am not-allistic on tumblr.
I have no idea who that is, and googling I just see a bunch of tags. (Also, you didn't answer the other questions.)
Thank you, I've now had time to read your post a second time and parse your other questions. Here are my answers.
(What is counterparty risk, by the way?)
The CDC will be an adequate source for this. I don't know and can't figure out how to find out when they'll next release an estimate of how common ASDs are. If they do it before the DSM-V comes out or shortly after it comes out, then I would wait and take not the next but the one after. If they wait until the DSM-V has been in use for a while, and I'm not sure how long a while should be, then maybe just the next one.
I am not well-calibrated enough to give good probability estimates and I worry that I'd just be making something up if I tried to give a number. I also revised down slightly from six hours ago considering what you and Yvain have said. I still think having this out there, even imperfectly, is of social utility because until recently, the better diagnosis model and the epidemic model had both predicted increasing prevalence. I wouldn't bet on it because, among other reasons, this prediction isn't really about proving me right or wrong. It's about proving a model right or wrong. If that model is wrong, then I update. I change my beliefs and actions, but then I move on. I don't "change sides" or anything like that. However, the model stands or falls here (or at some future predetermined point farther on, if one in 86 is still not the correct prevalence) and if it's going to survive, I want to see it believed by everyone, partly because proving this model eliminates the vaccine injury model (among others). You, who have reasoned that accumulated mutations are a reasonable model, are really not my opponent here.
I also admit that I want this model to be true because even without the hard work of educating people, it would show that there's no epidemic to be scared of, which might make educating people easier. That could cloud my judgment, but an empirical test will not have clouded judgment.
Fair enough?
Tumblr doesn't let you respond to posts, so I'll do it here:
You discuss a comic in a recent Tumblr post. The scene with the snowglobe is actually a reference I think you missed. Specifically, the last episode of the 1980s-era TV show St. Elsewhere, in which it's suggested that the entire show took place in the imagination of a child whose parents say he is autistic.
From Wikipedia:
"The Last One"
The 1988 final episode of St. Elsewhere, known as "The Last One", ended in a context very different from every other episode of the series. As the camera pans away from the snow beginning to fall at St. Eligius hospital, the scene changes to Donald Westphall's autistic son Tommy, along with Daniel Auschlander in an apartment building. Westphall arrives home from a day's work, and wears clothes suggesting that he is a construction worker. "Auschlander" is revealed to be Donald's father, and thus Tommy's grandfather. Donald laments to his father, "I don't understand this autism. I talk to my boy, but...I'm not even sure if he ever hears me...Tommy's locked inside his own world. Staring at that toy all day long. What does he think about?" The toy is revealed to be a snow globe with a replica of St. Eligius hospital inside. Tommy shakes the snow globe, and is told by his father to come and wash his hands, after having left the snow globe on the family's television set.[1]
One of the more common interpretations[citation needed] of this scene is that as Tommy shakes the snow globe in the apartment, he also makes it snow at the "fictional" St. Eligius. His father and grandfather also seem to work at this hospital even though neither man has ever experienced such a role. By implication this interpretation suggests the total series of events in the series St. Elsewhere had been a product of Tommy Westphall's imagination.
This comic is applying the same conceit to Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends.
Then St. Elsewhere, rather than the comic, is problematic and wrong. Thank you; I wouldn't have known that had you not told me.
I'm still glad to have put that up on tumblr because I still don't want people thinking that's an accurate portrayal of autism.
In response to
Prediction: Autism Rate will Stop Increasing
Under a simple assortative mating model written recently by Hays Golden (via MR), conservative* estimates of prevalence change will continue for multiple generations; excerpts.
* Conservative because his model assumes no underlying allele change, purely changes in mating patterns; in reality, we can expect increase in autism-related alleles, I think.
I've never quite bought the diagnosis thesis as a complete explanation - assortative mating seems plausible as a contributing factor, and implies the rate won't stabilize anytime soon.
So I think this calls for a bet or at least more precise prediction: what probability do you assign to you being right; what exactly what rigorous objective data-source would you or a neutral third-party use to judge this; and what time-frame will this be true or false in?
(I would also like you to claim this account under either your real name or a pseudonym you've invested a lot in, so you can't simply pretend it never happened if you're wrong or lose the bet - give a reason to not ignore you as either willfully increasing counterparty risk or gambling on being right and then claiming it publicly in the future.)
I hereby claim that I am not-allistic on tumblr.
I'm not sure you're right that we won't see any increase in autism prevalance - there are still some groups (girls, racial minorities, poor people) that are "underserved" when it comes to diagnosis, so we could see an increase if that changes, even if your underlying theory is correct. Still upvoted, tho.
Thank you. Yes, this is possible, but the increase in those groups would end up exactly matching the decrease in adult rates from learning coping skills so well as to be undiagnosable and that seems unlikely to me. Why shouldn't one be vastly more or less?
Anyway, I'm going to make the article now. If you want to continue this, we can do it there.
In response to
Welcome to Less Wrong! (July 2012)
I'm here to make one public prediction that I want to be as widely-read as possible. I'm here to predict publicly that the apparent increase in autism prevalence is over. It's important to predict it because it distinguishes between the position that autism is increasing unstoppably for no known reason (or because of vaccines) and the position that autism has not increased in prevalence, but diagnosis has increased in accuracy and a greater percentage of people with autism spectrum disorders are being diagnosed. It's important that this be as widely-read as possible as soon as possible because the next time prevalence estimates come out, I will be shown right or wrong. I want my theory and prediction out there now so that I can show that I predicted a surprising result before it happened. While many people are too irrational to be surprised when they see this result even though they have predicted the opposite, I hope that rationalists will come to believe my position when it is proven right. I hope that everyone disinterested will come to believe this. The reason why I hope this is because I want them to be more likely to listen to me when I make statements about human rights as they apply to people with autism spectrum disorders. It is important that society change its attitudes toward such individuals.
Please help me by upvoting me to two karma so I can post in the discussion section.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
In the spirit of constructive criticism:
I wouldn't worry much about John Best. He's obviously fringe / crackpot - more effectively ignored than explicitly addressed.
Just my two cents as a peripheral participant in special needs advocacy. Since you are more involved in the advocacy movement, your perspective may be different.
I concur, he's not worth taking seriously. However, when he and less-ranty people say the same things all the time and they're aimed at you, it hurts less if you point out (not in any of his spaces, obviously) that he's being irrational and ridiculous. You are correct that engaging with him directly would be a bad idea and writing a thoughtful critique of his ideas would probably be wasted effort. That's why you don't see me commenting on his blogs. I'm just needling here. It's also there for anyone else who's read his stuff and felt insulted, angry or heartsick to read and realize no one believes him. (My entire online not-allistic identity is designed to make autistic people feel better when they read it.) Best is also so easy to mock that I'm not fully convinced he's not a troll, but that's a lot of effort for a troll to go to over quite a long period of time.
Thank you for your advice, however.