6/07/2010

Oh Strawman, Oh Strawman

What follows is Harold’s response to my Numbers Issue post  with my rebuttal.
“KWombles issue is not with me. It is with the Canadian Pschological Association, the CDC and the CDC’s Autism Expert Dr. Yeargin-Allsop. And perhaps with her own aversion to intellectual disability.”
My issue is with you now since you’re tweeting crap and twisting things.

Yes, I have an issue with the Canadian Psychological Association putting an unsubstantiated number out there.
No problem with the CDC or Yeagin-Allsop, as she never said 80%. I suspect she’d be a bit flustered to see you saying she has.
And I don’t have an aversion to intellectual disability. Nor do I deny its very real existence. My oldest has an intellectual disability and autism.
“Dr. Yeargin- Allsopp stated clearly, in 2010, that 40% of all persons with any ASD are intellectually disabled.”
Yes. We agree that she did indeed say that.


“Since that figure includes all those with Aspergers who by definition have no cognitive impairment the 40% of all persons with an ASD having an Intellectual Disability does in fact approximate the 80% of persons with the specific diagnosis of Autistic Disorder who have cognitive deficits.”
Your math really sucks. You can’t do what you are doing here. Pervasive Developmental Disorder, which is the umbrella under which all five categories fall, is commonly referred to as autism. There isn’t a neat divide between autistic disorder and Asperger’s. You are leaving out PDD-NOS, Retts, and Childhood Disintegrative Disorder. You cannot simply double the number.
“Referencing the original definition of autism , which preceded the Aspergers addition to the spectrum Dr. Yeargin-Allsop also stated that “the vast majority of those diagnosed with autism had an intellectual disability”.”
Historically, this is true. About three quarters were. The original criteria were much more restrictive. You cannot base today’s rate of intellectual disability in conjunction with autism on the original criteria. You can try, but it doesn’t make you accurate.
“KWombles cites her interpretation of a 2003 study which included Dr. Yeargin-Allsopp as an author but ignores Dr. Yeargin-Allsopp’s own statements made in 2010.”
No, I don’t. You’re the one taking what she said and creating the 80% number. You’re wrong.
“KWombles also ignores the fact that the CDC has reported two surveys subsequent to Dr. Yeargin-Allsopp’s 2003 study in 2004 and 2006 which showed, in each report, that more than 40% of all persons with an ASD have intellectual disabilities.”
No, I don’t. I’ve cited that number. My argument is with your faulty math.
“Again for KWombles benefit that figure is based on the entire “spectrum” including persons with Aspergers who are not intellectually disabled by diagnostic defintion.”
You seem to forget PDD-NOS, Retts and Childhood Disintegrative Disorder are, too.
“’Autism’ has been glorified and romanticized in the mass media and in the Neurodiversity ideological movement as a “difference” not a disability, not a disorder. KWombles argument is reflected of much of that unfortunate glorification.”
No, my argument is based on the best evidence at hand that your interpretation of what autism looks like is seriously flawed. It has nothing to do with glorification.
“Her views do not just ignore the real challenges faced by those with Autistic Disorder they also reflect and contribute to the continued stigmatization of those with Intellectual Disabilities.”
That’s pure and utter bunk. It doesn’t ignore the challenges. I’m fully aware of them as a mother to three on the spectrum. And I certainly am not contributing to the stigmatization of individuals with ID.


Harold has spunk. He may not have much as far as reading comprehension, but he perseverates with the best of em:


Now, when the Canadian Psychological Association puts a number out there and doesn't back it up, and Harold feels a license to take Yeargin-Allsopp's and the CDC's 41% figure and nearly double it, I have a problem. I really have a problem with a git trying to say I have an aversion to ID being associated with autism when everything I've written clearly shows that there is a significant overlap. That makes Harold an asshat and a dumbass. I guess three thousand words or so of the research relating to the prevalence of ID with autism was too much for him to take in. 

3 comments:

AutismNewsBeat said...

Harold doesn't do reason.

Liz Ditz said...

What ANB said.

Alexander Cheezem said...

Edelson did a very nice review of this issue in (I think) 2006. Looks it up Yeah, it was 2006. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 21(2), 66-83.

As for stats on intellectual disability in Kanner's population, they're a bit suspicious for a wide variety of reasons. For one thing, they were pretty much invariably based on early versions of the Stanford-Binet, which weren't valid on women, ethnic minorities, or the poor -- never mind the neurologically atypical (I'm not certain about the current version of the test)... and even the current version is heavily dependant on verbal items. Thus someone who couldn't understand the spoken instructions would pretty much automatically score absurdly low.

Moreover, given the automatic institutionalization and non-education which were far more prevalent then than they are now (understatement, but they're still going on...), autistic children often didn't have the chance to learn the material they were tested on and were often given brain-damaging treatments (ECT, lobotomy...).

All of these factors would lead to an overestimation of the prevalence of ID in autistics, even if such studies were done... and, well, read Edelson's paper. It sums it up far better than I can.