→social cognition theories: order reversed |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →autism: paras |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
: I moved this from the section above, as it seems to be more of same, and appears to have gotten lost in the shuffle. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC) |
: I moved this from the section above, as it seems to be more of same, and appears to have gotten lost in the shuffle. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
::I saw this and I am unsure about it as well. Autism is not very well understood and there have to be dozens if not hundreds of theories regarding its origin and causes, it's not clear that this one particular theory is regarded highly enough to be included. The paper itself appears to be a primary source for the theory. Are there secondary sources that show this theory is well accepted? <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 00:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC) |
::I saw this and I am unsure about it as well. Autism is not very well understood and there have to be dozens if not hundreds of theories regarding its origin and causes, it's not clear that this one particular theory is regarded highly enough to be included. The paper itself appears to be a primary source for the theory. Are there secondary sources that show this theory is well accepted? <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 00:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
=== autism === |
|||
:::: Moved from [[User talk:SandyGeorgia]]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Hi Sandy. I agree about having high standards for material on the autism page. I hope we don't end up in a fight. Sometimes the editors I meet who revert sex-difference material can get really worked up. I hope this isn't one of those times. We both just want the best article, right? [[User:Leadwind|<font color="green">Leadwind</font>]] ([[User_talk:Leadwind|talk]]) 20:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: I'm sorry you have encountered past issues with "sex-difference material", but I have no such history, concerns or issues. I do expect text inserted into any (medical) [[WP:FA|featured article]] to comply with [[WP:UNDUE]] and to meet the sourcing standards at [[WP:MEDRS]], and the criteria at [[WP:WIAFA]]. You have made some good suggestions for improvements to the leads, but discussion of other text would best continue on article talk. Regards, [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: OK, thanks. [[User:Leadwind|<font color="green">Leadwind</font>]] ([[User_talk:Leadwind|talk]]) 03:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::You seem not to like Simon Baron-Cohen, but I don't see anything wrong with him. If you know something about him and why I shouldn't take him at face value, let me know. I don't want to take him seriously if he's a charlatan. [[User:Leadwind|<font color="green">Leadwind</font>]] ([[User_talk:Leadwind|talk]]) 05:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::: {{ping|Leadwind}} could you please stop making assumptions about other people's motives? As I have explained above, on medical FAs, our concern is that we use the highest quality, most up-to-date, independent, secondary reviews and respect [[WP:UNDUE|due weight]]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::On [[Talk:Autism]], you said, "Could we find a place in daughter articles for Baron-Cohen speculation?" Baron-Cohen looks like a prominent autism researcher, and he's been working on autism for 30 years now, but you think his theories are "speculation." Is there a reason that I should dismiss his theories as speculation? If so, I'd like to know. [[User:Leadwind|<font color="green">Leadwind</font>]] ([[User_talk:Leadwind|talk]]) 14:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Please confine article discussion to article talk, where ''everyone'' can participate. Please, again, stop ascribing motives to people's edits. The quoted sentence would convey the same message if I had typed "for speculation", "for the speculation", or "for this speculation". The "Baron-Cohen" was merely a qualifier for "the" speculation. <p>Once again, this is a broad overview article, and because it is an FA, we should be using the highest quality, most recent secondary reviews and giving [[WP:UNDUE|due weight]] to individual theories. Giving prominence to any one theory promoted by any given research is undue and could (in some cases) also involve cherry picking of sources to promote individual views. As I said, could we find a place for this one theory promoted by one researcher in a daughter article, such as [[causes of autism]]? <p>Alternately, if you can produce a recent, high-quality review by an independent researcher that discusses this theory, we could incorporate what that secondary review might say. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== social cognition theories == |
== social cognition theories == |
Revision as of 16:46, 14 October 2013
Spoken Wikipedia | ||||
|
Autism spectrum is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Wikipedia CD selection Template:WP1.0 |
A Consensus review paper you may find of interest
I just came across this paper while researching another related topic, Consensus paper: pathological role of the cerebellum in autism 2012 which could be useful when updating the article dolfrog (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Autism is not a disease, it's part of our way of life, part of our personality
I'm strongly against Autism being classed as a 'disease' on this page, I'm deeply offended that on the article class's it as a disease due to possible trolling. Several sources here, here, I'm sick of this discrimination and mis-leading users. --Ronnie42 (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Ronnie42, nowhere in the article it is said that autism is a disease. It's just the name of the infobox and I agree with you that it would have been better if the infobox had another name. However, our usual reader cannot even see that the infobox is called "Infobox disease" and it is an huge job to change the name of the infobox, so personally I think it is better to let it be. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Autism and math skills
I would like to question the accuracy of a statement in the FAQ about how autistic children have "average math skills." I have found a recently published study that contradicts this notion. The study concluded, "Children with ASD showed better numerical problem solving abilities and relied on sophisticated decomposition strategies for single-digit addition problems more frequently than TD [typically developing] peers." In addition, another paper found that "autism (or autistic traits) and savant skills are inextricably linked." Accordingly, I request that the FAQ be changed. Jinkinson talk to me 12:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- In support of the statement, the FAQ cites PMID 17947290, Mathematical ability of students with Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism: a review of literature, which says "the majority of individuals with AS/HFA have average mathematical ability". What is the PMID of the study you're talking about? Please be aware that we weight secondary sources like literature reviews more highly than individual studies.
Zad68
12:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I think I meant to include the study, but it slipped my mind somehow. Anyway, the first study is here: [1] The second study can be found here: [2]. Jinkinson talk to me 12:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- We have been over this dozens of times (please review talk page archives both on this page and at Talk:Asperger syndrome). This (Wikipedia's) article cites a secondary literature review (see WP:MEDRS). The first source you provide is a primary source, which is contradicted by the secondary review. I do not have access to the full text of the second source you give, but a) if savant skills are linked to autism, that might belong in one of the savant articles, and b) I don't see that you've provided any quote that negates the text we have in the article. That skills may or may not be linked does not negate the secondary-review-cited data that most have average ability (savants are not most or even a sizeable minority). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Sandy that the sources provided are insufficient to overcome the strength of what we're using in the article or in the FAQ.
Zad68
16:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe both are right. It's possible for the majority of a population to have average math skills but for the population as a whole to have above average math skills. Think of it this way: you could have a country where the men are a little taller on average, the tallest men would be really tall, and there would be fewer short men, but still most of the men would be in the "average height" range. We could say, "While their math skills are higher on average, most of them have average math skills." Leadwind (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- That is not what the sources are saying (think about focus on one small minority of a much larger population). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe both are right. It's possible for the majority of a population to have average math skills but for the population as a whole to have above average math skills. Think of it this way: you could have a country where the men are a little taller on average, the tallest men would be really tall, and there would be fewer short men, but still most of the men would be in the "average height" range. We could say, "While their math skills are higher on average, most of them have average math skills." Leadwind (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- One of the problems with the "Asperger syndrome" and "high-functioning autism" labels (and why they are being deprecated) is that many feel they are an artificial construct that has little epidemiological, causative or therapeutic value. If you take a population and exclude those with cognitive issues, then you are bound to get a population that is "above average" in certain measures. Like saying "Ford cars that aren't grey or black tend to be more colourful than the average car". It is meaningless. What is often not presented to a lay audience when autism and Asperger syndrome is discussed is the large number of people with learning difficulties who are on the autism spectrum. People don't make television programs or movies about them but visit any special school and you'll find plenty. So the general public have this misconception that people with autism are savants or are great mathematicians or software engineers. What we can't do is synthesise sources to make some kind of contrasting comment. Let's leave it to the high-quality secondary sources to comment on this issue. Colin°Talk 20:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Leadwind. I usually work on leads, but when I find problems in the body, I fix them sometimes, too. I took this out of the article, "this extension is controversial, as many studies contradict the idea that baby boys and girls respond differently to people and objects.<ref>{{vcite journal |author=Spelke ES |title=Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science?: a critical review |journal=Am Psychol |volume=60 |issue=9 |pages=950–8 |year=2005 |pmid=16366817 |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.60.9.950 |url=http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/spelke2005.pdf |format=PDF }}</ref>" The editor is using this reference to question the hypothesis, when the reference doesn't even mention autism. It's an honest mistake, I'm sure, but it's WP:OR to use a reference to try to prove a point other than the point the reference is making. If this hypothesis really is controversial, then let's use a reference that demonstrates the controversy related to it, not just controversy over sex differences in general.
While I'm here, can I ask that someone please put something in the lead about the sex ratio? Autism demonstrates a consistent and significant sex bias. Leadwind (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Fetal exposure to testosterone
I've removed this edit for discussion (source). If a secondary review, compliant with WP:MEDRS, can be found to back this text, it might be more appropriate to causes of autism. Unless important, recent reviews mention this, keeping the length of this overview article manageable is a concern. If no secondary reviews mention it, then whether it even belongs in the Causes sub-article is questionable. Is there a secondary review that mentions the testosterone theory? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Here's the text that Sandy removed:
- An extension, the extreme male brain theory, hypothesizes that autism is an extreme case of the male brain, defined psychometrically as individuals in whom systemizing is better than empathizing.<ref name=E-S-theory/> Certain evidence associates traits of autistics with fetal exposure to testosterone.<ref name = "Whiteley">Whiteley, Paul, et al. [http://www.la-press.com/gender-ratios-in-autism-asperger-syndrome-and-autism-spectrum-disorder-article-a1900 Gender Ratios in Autism, Asperger Syndrome and Autism Spectrum Disorder]. Autism Insights. 5 March 2010. Retrieved 12 October 2013.</ref>
- I know some people don't like to talk about sex differences, but unless we have some reason to doubt the paper that I referenced, it has a place in this article. Sandy says this is a speculative primary source, but if you read the paper you see that it summarizes a large number of findings in various fields. I know some people have a knee-jerk reaction against the idea of sex differences, and I don't want to get into a fight, but let's humbly summarize what the expert say instead of picking and choosing ourselves what goes on the page. Leadwind (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- It works the other way, Leadwind. It is up to the person trying to insert "facts" to prove they are supported by the best sources and represent the best available evidence. It isn't up to others to prove they are poor or wrong. Unless reliable secondary sources on autism give WP:WEIGHT to the testosterone theory then it has no place in this article. Colin°Talk 20:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- User:Leadwind, I have no "pony in the race" with respect to sex differences, but I would appreciate it if you would review WP:WIAFA and WP:MEDRS. Those two pages, in conjunction with WP:UNDUE (and concerns about length of this featured article) will help you understand what we might include here, or in daughter articles, or anywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- First off I want to say that I am quite sympathetic to male brain idea. It fits nicely with a lot of data (I say this both as an experimental psychologist and the Dad of a kid with autism). That said, Colin and Sandy are right. We have to go with the secondary sources. We can't give undue weight to something that the secondary sources don't. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I also don't agree with this use of this source. This source doesn't appear to even be indexed in either PubMed or MEDLINE so its reliability is in question. It also appears to be a primary source; we already have lots of secondary sources providing theories about causes of autism. We should stick with the secondary sources, not primaries.
Zad68
00:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)- OK, sorry I got off on the wrong foot there. I'm used to sex-difference stuff getting deleted on political grounds, so that's what I assumed was going on. But if we're all friendly with the idea that fetal testosterone exposure creates inborn sex differences and if no one is trying to keep Baron-Cohen off the page, then my job is just to find a better source (if there is one). I'm familiar with the general WP standards, but the medical source policy is new to me. Leadwind (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you find a high quality, recent secondary review that discusses this, I doubt that you will find opposition to adding the text. But keep in mind that all medical content must conform to WP:MEDRS, but a featured article must additionally satisfy WP:WIAFA with respect to high quality sources, and we must also keep in mind due weight and the size of the article. You might want to also review WP:OWN#Featured articles ... it would be helpful if you discuss edits on talk, as there is generally a valid reason for exclusion/inclusion of most text here. As can seen from the section above, reasonable edits are accommodated :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, sorry I got off on the wrong foot there. I'm used to sex-difference stuff getting deleted on political grounds, so that's what I assumed was going on. But if we're all friendly with the idea that fetal testosterone exposure creates inborn sex differences and if no one is trying to keep Baron-Cohen off the page, then my job is just to find a better source (if there is one). I'm familiar with the general WP standards, but the medical source policy is new to me. Leadwind (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Re this edit, this is an overview article, and an FA, which should rely on the highest quality recent secondary reviews. Could we find a place in daughter articles for Baron-Cohen speculation? Unless independent secondary reviews mention this, it might be better suited in a daughter article, and WP:UNDUE here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- I moved this from the section above, as it seems to be more of same, and appears to have gotten lost in the shuffle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I saw this and I am unsure about it as well. Autism is not very well understood and there have to be dozens if not hundreds of theories regarding its origin and causes, it's not clear that this one particular theory is regarded highly enough to be included. The paper itself appears to be a primary source for the theory. Are there secondary sources that show this theory is well accepted?
Zad68
00:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I saw this and I am unsure about it as well. Autism is not very well understood and there have to be dozens if not hundreds of theories regarding its origin and causes, it's not clear that this one particular theory is regarded highly enough to be included. The paper itself appears to be a primary source for the theory. Are there secondary sources that show this theory is well accepted?
autism
- Moved from User talk:SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. I agree about having high standards for material on the autism page. I hope we don't end up in a fight. Sometimes the editors I meet who revert sex-difference material can get really worked up. I hope this isn't one of those times. We both just want the best article, right? Leadwind (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you have encountered past issues with "sex-difference material", but I have no such history, concerns or issues. I do expect text inserted into any (medical) featured article to comply with WP:UNDUE and to meet the sourcing standards at WP:MEDRS, and the criteria at WP:WIAFA. You have made some good suggestions for improvements to the leads, but discussion of other text would best continue on article talk. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Leadwind (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- You seem not to like Simon Baron-Cohen, but I don't see anything wrong with him. If you know something about him and why I shouldn't take him at face value, let me know. I don't want to take him seriously if he's a charlatan. Leadwind (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Leadwind: could you please stop making assumptions about other people's motives? As I have explained above, on medical FAs, our concern is that we use the highest quality, most up-to-date, independent, secondary reviews and respect due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- On Talk:Autism, you said, "Could we find a place in daughter articles for Baron-Cohen speculation?" Baron-Cohen looks like a prominent autism researcher, and he's been working on autism for 30 years now, but you think his theories are "speculation." Is there a reason that I should dismiss his theories as speculation? If so, I'd like to know. Leadwind (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please confine article discussion to article talk, where everyone can participate. Please, again, stop ascribing motives to people's edits. The quoted sentence would convey the same message if I had typed "for speculation", "for the speculation", or "for this speculation". The "Baron-Cohen" was merely a qualifier for "the" speculation.
Once again, this is a broad overview article, and because it is an FA, we should be using the highest quality, most recent secondary reviews and giving due weight to individual theories. Giving prominence to any one theory promoted by any given research is undue and could (in some cases) also involve cherry picking of sources to promote individual views. As I said, could we find a place for this one theory promoted by one researcher in a daughter article, such as causes of autism?
Alternately, if you can produce a recent, high-quality review by an independent researcher that discusses this theory, we could incorporate what that secondary review might say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please confine article discussion to article talk, where everyone can participate. Please, again, stop ascribing motives to people's edits. The quoted sentence would convey the same message if I had typed "for speculation", "for the speculation", or "for this speculation". The "Baron-Cohen" was merely a qualifier for "the" speculation.
- On Talk:Autism, you said, "Could we find a place in daughter articles for Baron-Cohen speculation?" Baron-Cohen looks like a prominent autism researcher, and he's been working on autism for 30 years now, but you think his theories are "speculation." Is there a reason that I should dismiss his theories as speculation? If so, I'd like to know. Leadwind (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Leadwind: could you please stop making assumptions about other people's motives? As I have explained above, on medical FAs, our concern is that we use the highest quality, most up-to-date, independent, secondary reviews and respect due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- You seem not to like Simon Baron-Cohen, but I don't see anything wrong with him. If you know something about him and why I shouldn't take him at face value, let me know. I don't want to take him seriously if he's a charlatan. Leadwind (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Leadwind (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
social cognition theories
Treatment of the extreme male brain theory and mind blindness theory gets the order backward. Simon Baron-Cohen proposed mindblindness first (1985), and later he and his team proposed EMP as a way to explain the nonsocial issues that mindblindness doesn't explain. Anyone mind if I straighten that up? Leadwind (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)