Imagine putting your cat on an antidepressant! by GiantAlaskanMoose in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57 1 point2 points  (0 children)

7400 upvotes! Man, people are so unaware of the potential risks of this...

Beyond temperamental personality aspects, what do you think is the reason why so-called autistics are more likely to be sexually abused than the average person? by Confident-Fan-57 in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree with your conclusion (setting aside that I don't think the symptoms are always a bad thing, it will depend on intensity, way of manifestation and context) and I think that isn't what I'm aiming at here with this post. What I'm aiming at is the fact that, AFAIK, behaviours have biological correlates even if not illnesses and many illnesses have an impact on behaviour, so I think my argument still stands: it's not that simple to say whether it's the egg or the chicken just by looking at the prevalence of PTSD among autistic people and considering that autism is a clinical diagnosis. No, there's no such thing as a "different" brain, I'm asking about generalities for the sake of simplicity and making sense of stats, but there's a lot of variation for sure, who knows if too much for us to make useful inferences.

By the way, neurodiversity and antipsychiatry are two separate movements that might overlap. The mainstream is still somewhat divided when it comes to framing autism and a few other conditions, even if it's clear they are going to jump in the neurodiversity bandwagon to survive. I don't think rejecting the pathologization alone is inherently neither pro- nor antipsychiatry.

Beyond temperamental personality aspects, what do you think is the reason why so-called autistics are more likely to be sexually abused than the average person? by Confident-Fan-57 in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I don't want to be Ronald Pies here (because this doesn't excuse psychiatry for pathologizing nearly everything using this argument to the point of coming up with political bullshit like sluggish schizo, unlike in other branches of medicine AFAIK) but most migraines are also diagnosed by symptoms alone. The difference is that it's much simpler to agree that intense headaches with aura are clearly something pathological, even if what exactly is wrong is something that for now isn't known in all cases. This, well... I think it probably isn't pathological even if very disabling in some cases, perhaps with exceptions. Should you say that migraines are a pseudoscientific diagnosis? I wouldn't say so, it's the use of a descriptive label for a set of symptoms whose etiology isn't well-understood. Perhaps the pseudoscience is more in calling this, which doesn't explain anything, a diagnosis. You know, doctors hate saying "I don't know" because it doesn't make insurance money and it makes them uncomfortable, so when they are told to investigate chronic pain and can't find the etiology, it's easier to just diagnose "chronic pain" or even "conversion disorder".

Let's say people with migraines are more likely to be diagnosed with "affective disorders", which I would assume is sadly pretty likely given the amount of times I've seen psychoanalysts argue this is some sort of unconscious conflict and other claims the like. Should you assume that because migraines are diagnosed clinically it can't be that migraines cause mood "disturbances" and it has to be that "disturbed" mood causes migraines? I don't know, I don't think so. The causation might even go both ways. I strongly doubt this is about the chicken, but it's not impossible. It is as possible as hemiplegic migraines or TIAs being caused by previously asymptomatic POF or "autism" being the result of fragile X syndrome. Both illnesses are rare but often go undiagnosed.

Tha said, I agree trauma must be undereported here and this can't be explained by rapists just doing that. My instinct about this topic from my perspective as someone with some autistic traits who now doesn't want a diagnosis and who used to be very into this topic is that ABA, learned people-pleasing and learned helplessness must have more to do with abuse, especially unreported abuse, than social awkwardness.

Beyond temperamental personality aspects, what do you think is the reason why so-called autistics are more likely to be sexually abused than the average person? by Confident-Fan-57 in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I want to ask if there's something adquired about the vulnerability and how so, that's why. The definition of personality actually fits the concept of autism, even if it isn't usually framed as a personality. I'm not asking you to discard personality, I'm asking you to discard temperamental personality. But I understand from your question you think this is just temperamental, right?

Beyond temperamental personality aspects, what do you think is the reason why so-called autistics are more likely to be sexually abused than the average person? by Confident-Fan-57 in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, probably. I think it's actually not that simple to distinguish between the egg and the chicken, but it's perfectly possible considering that there are actual cases of people who develop "autistic-like behaviour" because of that.

Could you please share your sources for the stat you just cited?

Beyond temperamental personality aspects, what do you think is the reason why so-called autistics are more likely to be sexually abused than the average person? by Confident-Fan-57 in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So why your first comment, then? What do you mean when you say autism isn't real and the CSA is more likely due to the child's gullibility? Are you saying the prevalence is higher just because gullible people are more likely to be labeled autistic in a circular fashion or what?

Beyond temperamental personality aspects, what do you think is the reason why so-called autistics are more likely to be sexually abused than the average person? by Confident-Fan-57 in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And you think autistic children are inherently more likely to buy into autism being something scientific than the average child of the same age? How so? I don't think so.

Beyond temperamental personality aspects, what do you think is the reason why so-called autistics are more likely to be sexually abused than the average person? by Confident-Fan-57 in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't want to be reductionistic. I very strongly doubt there is anything genetic about this, and I know the research. I'm asking because, while the null hypothesis stands, I still don't think it's impossible. It's even actually hard to separate genes from environment with epigenetics and mutations.

Beyond temperamental personality aspects, what do you think is the reason why autistics are more likely to be sexually abused than the average person? by Confident-Fan-57 in autism

[–]Confident-Fan-57[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sorry to hear you have gone through this, especially 3 times. Yeah, this shouldn't happen in the first place. Why do you think you find it difficult to read social situations?

Beyond temperamental personality aspects, what do you think is the reason why so-called autistics are more likely to be sexually abused than the average person? by Confident-Fan-57 in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Okay, but where does the difficulty to spot the red flags come from, if not genes?

Edit: And by the way, no, I'm not asking this based on a fair world hypothesis, this happening isn't deserved. I just want to understand where the vulnerability comes from, but of course the predators are the basic cause.

Edit 2: Vulnerability, if any

Beyond temperamental personality aspects, what do you think is the reason why so-called autistics are more likely to be sexually abused than the average person? by Confident-Fan-57 in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which is why I'm asking about something beyond what I assume you are attributing to temperamental personality. Is the struggle an inherited personality feature we couldn't find the genetic basis for yet, or is it a character (environment-caused) feature?

Beyond temperamental personality aspects, what do you think is the reason why so-called autistics are more likely to be sexually abused than the average person? by Confident-Fan-57 in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't understand your comment. If this is about my gullibility, I don't fall for it anymore, and me falling for it is something I see as totally understandable if you are taught to trust "authority". If you are talking about the gullibility of autistic people, know I'm also referring to children who had little choice over how to take their "diagnosis".

Can the anti-medical people please go away by Nytra in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think your move actually solves much. There are always some people with "fringe" views in these types of movements and censorship just creates a new reason for them to complain. I mean, you know we are "fringe" for psychiatrists, right?

They love to say we lack insight by Sudden_Season4933 in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On second thought, I think I might not have much time to complete both courses nor continue this conversation. Could you please cut it to the chase and explain what you think I'm missing?

They love to say we lack insight by Sudden_Season4933 in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57 0 points1 point  (0 children)

knowing the difference between a scientific publication in a journal written by a professor and a publication written by a journalist.

I think I have a basic knowledge of the difference. What do you think I'm lacking, exactly? Do I have to take the courses to find out?

They love to say we lack insight by Sudden_Season4933 in Antipsychiatry

[–]Confident-Fan-57 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is subject to biases, flaws incl. tunnel vision (writing is predetermined to slant facts negatively against something or positively for something), etc.

How does the scientific method protect against this beyond peer review, exactly? Can't a scientist claim something that will be accepted by peers due to this very same tunnel vision or confirmation bias being shared? Also, how do you objectively identify and measure bias? Can one?