INTENSITY²
Start here => Free For ALL => Topic started by: ladytron on April 24, 2007, 12:23:24 AM
-
I suck at math
If there are 298,444,215 people in the US as of 2006
And there are 15 births per 1000 people in the US
Then there are = how many births in the US? (I got approx. 4,476,660 taking off decimal points)
If 1 in 150 children born are on the autism spectrum, then how many autistic children, in theory, were born in '06
Again, I such at math
Thanks
-
298,444,215 / 1000 = 298,444
298,444 * 15 = 4476660
4476660/150 = 29844.4
Then there are = how many births in the US? (I got approx. 4,476,660 taking off decimal points)
What decimal?
Again, I such at math
*refrains from making typing comment* *tries to be good*
*fails anyhow*
-
Actually the "semi-official number" is 1 in 166, so the answer using this number is 26968.
You also need to understand that this supposed increase in the number is because of more people seeking a diagnosis, who in the old days perhaps would have been diagnosed with something else, if they were even diagnosed at all. Also, it is for all diagnosed ASD's, not specifically an autism diagnosis.
-
Yes, I also LIVE on type-os. My fatal flaw.
That is the number I got. Because of my suckiness at math just wanted to make sure my calculation followed the right line of logic.
THANK YOU
-
Actually the "semi-official number" is 1 in 166, so the answer using this number is 26968.
You also need to understand that this supposed increase in the number is because of more people seeking a diagnosis, who in the old days perhaps would have been diagnosed with something else, if they were even diagnosed at all. Also, it is for all diagnosed ASD's, not specifically an autism diagnosis.
I suspect the number is MUCH higher. I noticed a magical spark
which I'm fairly convinced has some correlation with AS - especially
since I saw this spark in those with autism, but not in the mass of
people that I've dealt with.
-
According to the current criteria, the numbers probably aren't significantly higher than that. :-\
-
Are the numbers some sort of estimate? Because clearly a good number
of people will never be DX'd, whether by choice, or simply not knowing.
-
Are the numbers some sort of estimate? Because clearly a good number
of people will never be DX'd, whether by choice, or simply not knowing.
/me mutters about Sophist never being at hand when needed.
Yes, the way I understand it, it's an estimate. Obviously, too, because I doubt it's possible to simply do a head count.
<rant>
The researchers are probably well aware of the fact that there are people that will never get a dx, for one reason or another. They are also aware of the fact that social awkwardness alone does not an aspie make, no matter what the sympathetic ears at WP and other places say. (Chorus: we don't care what the doctors say, we know that you're one of uuuusssss...)
An important criteria not to be forgotten is that in addition to the DSM list, you need to have experienced significant difficulties directly related to the other symptoms, it's named a "disorder" for a reason. Having some autistic traits, among them difficulty reading social signals, is certainly more common, obsessing about things for months on end is too. Weak theory of mind, lack of central coherence, executive dysfunction (no, not the kind that affects Vice Presidents and board members), etc, in combination, are probably not.
You don't get a dx because you need to belong to a social club for rejects.
</rant>
-
It is impossible to make an accurate estimate on unreported data.
But, I was unaware of the significant difficulty aspect. Seems silly
to me, and serves no purpose in what I'm interested in. Frankly,
I'm more intrigued by people who are NOT suffering, but have
most of the traits. It's like saying that a person without the use
of his legs is not effected by a disorder, if they have a desk job.
-
True, but we're talking about a disorder that is only diagnosable using a list of criteria, and the part about experiencing significant difficulties isn't taken THAT lightly. You can sit in a wheelchair and handle your desk job perfectly but if your coworkers invite you to a party held on the third floor of a house that doesn't have an elevator, you're fucked, and that's because of your handicap.
-
For the important answers in life I turn to the magic hate ball.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/hateball
-
(Chorus: we don't care what the doctors say, we know that you're one of uuuusssss...)
I don't think that there's anyone over there who claims to have been DX'd without,
but wants to fit in for some sick reason.
I don't have one, and am not sure that I want one - which is the case with a number
of people there. There also seem to be a decent number who ARE DX'd, but question
whether it was correct.
-
For the important answers in life I turn to the magic hate ball.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/hateball
So far it's two for two.
It said it wasn't going to tell me, and it discerned that my family tree doesn't branch.
This thing is awesome.
-
When I frequented WP, there were quite a few people that seemed to have the other AS, Adolescent Syndrome, rather than an ASD. I don't know about the place now.
Look, I don't doubt that there are a number of un-dx'd people out there. I just don't believe that the overall numbers are significantly higher than the 1/166 quoted, partly because most of the ASD researchers I respect seem to agree on a number therabouts, but also because it's a spectrum and a number of cases will invariably be on the "wrong" side of the threshold, depending on how you define the limit.
And I'm not defining anything, that's for the people who write the DSM and other manuals.
-
When I frequented WP, there were quite a few people that seemed to have the other AS, Adolescent Syndrome, rather than an ASD. I don't know about the place now.
Seems that way. But doesn't this place too?
And I'm not defining anything, that's for the people who write the DSM and other manuals.
Certainly not saying that you are. I'm just saying that suffering doesn't particularly interest me - unless I'm aroused at the time.
-
Actually the "semi-official number" is 1 in 166, so the answer using this number is 26968.
You also need to understand that this supposed increase in the number is because of more people seeking a diagnosis, who in the old days perhaps would have been diagnosed with something else, if they were even diagnosed at all. Also, it is for all diagnosed ASD's, not specifically an autism diagnosis.
There's also the fact that the increased number of ASD dx's are nearly exactly proportional to the decreased number of MR diagnoses. Hey, don't throw rotten tomatoes, I'm just tellin' it like I read it.
-
What's MR? Sorry, but I'm still new to all of this,
and never put any faith in psychology anyhow.
-
I'm guessing mentally retarded. But it is a big leap in conclusion.
-
They are also aware of the fact that social awkwardness alone does not an aspie make, no matter what the sympathetic ears at WP and other places say. (Chorus: we don't care what the doctors say, we know that you're one of uuuusssss...)
Are most people here diagnosed not self-diagnosed?
-
I rather get that feeling.
I'm self, but I suspect getting
a DX would be trivial. I'm just
not sure that there's any value.
Going to talk to my shrink about it
when he next has time for me.
-
I should hope he has time for you!
-
They are also aware of the fact that social awkwardness alone does not an aspie make, no matter what the sympathetic ears at WP and other places say. (Chorus: we don't care what the doctors say, we know that you're one of uuuusssss...)
Are most people here diagnosed not self-diagnosed?
Dunno. Just felt like whining. :)
-
Actually the "semi-official number" is 1 in 166, so the answer using this number is 26968.
You also need to understand that this supposed increase in the number is because of more people seeking a diagnosis, who in the old days perhaps would have been diagnosed with something else, if they were even diagnosed at all. Also, it is for all diagnosed ASD's, not specifically an autism diagnosis.
Hi Callaway
Actually, the Centers for Disease Control announced about two months ago the new number is 1 in 150. It's official and everything. That's for anyone one the spectrum, which does include AS and and SID and other crap.
-
Are the numbers some sort of estimate? Because clearly a good number
of people will never be DX'd, whether by choice, or simply not knowing.
The number is derived from what is by nature a rough estimate based on the data from 14 states gotten from school districts and regional centers with special ed kids on their rosters.
So, as you all so brilliant point out, the number is UNDOUBTEDLY higher. I see kids around all the time who are on the spectrum and no one has diagnosed them.
-
Actually the "semi-official number" is 1 in 166, so the answer using this number is 26968.
You also need to understand that this supposed increase in the number is because of more people seeking a diagnosis, who in the old days perhaps would have been diagnosed with something else, if they were even diagnosed at all. Also, it is for all diagnosed ASD's, not specifically an autism diagnosis.
Hi Callaway
Actually, the Centers for Disease Control announced about two months ago the new number is 1 in 150. It's official and everything. That's for anyone one the spectrum, which does include AS and and SID and other crap.
What the fuck do they know? It's not a disease.
-
Are most people here diagnosed not self-diagnosed?
I'm officially diagnosed by a legitimate psychiatrist. A diagnosis seemed like something too potentially important to undertake on my own, you know?
-
Are most people here diagnosed not self-diagnosed?
I'm officially diagnosed by a legitimate psychiatrist. A diagnosis seemed like something too potentially important to undertake on my own, you know?
What makes a psychiatrist legit? Are there illegitimate ones?
-
Are most people here diagnosed not self-diagnosed?
I'm officially diagnosed by a legitimate psychiatrist. A diagnosis seemed like something too potentially important to undertake on my own, you know?
What makes a psychiatrist legit? Are there illegitimate ones?
There's the licensed kind and there's the unlicensed kind.
-
There's the licensed kind and there's the unlicensed kind.
Isn't that illegal?
-
What makes a psychiatrist legit? Are there illegitimate ones?
As far as I know, an official grade from having completed being fully educated as a clinical psychiatrist is what makes one legit. And, yes, there are a lot of new age mumbo-jumbo hocus-pocus frauds out there who proclaim themselves to be "psychiatrists" as well, but then do stuff like prescribe herbal tea and "crystal therapy" to those gullible enough to believe them. Ick.
-
Ah. I forget the different laws of different countries.
AFAIK, in the US, you can't use that term without
an MD in psychiatry.
-
Ah. I forget the different laws of different countries.
AFAIK, in the US, you can't use that term without
an MD in psychiatry.
That's pretty much what I meant, I think. An MD, aka. a doctor's grade. That you would get when you complete your education, etc. as a psychiatrist.
-
Ah. I forget the different laws of different countries.
AFAIK, in the US, you can't use that term without
an MD in psychiatry.
That's pretty much what I meant, I think. An MD, aka. a doctor's grade. That you would get when you complete your education, etc. as a psychiatrist.
Unfortunately, it doesn't mean that they know crap.
Not that I have any great knowledge of the area,
but I feel about on par with my current (free) shrink.
-
Actually; I've only been to one single psychiatrist in my entire life, which is the one I went to in order to get diagnosed. She was very competent, so I've no idea whether or not it is a guarantee for knowing anything or not. I've heard horror stories about people being to shrinks who had no damn clue what they were talking about, though. There are plenty of stories of incompetent shrinks here in Sweden, where most doctors would rather prescribe medication than listen to your problems.
-
I've been to a half dozen or so.
Mainly, I found councilors better.
They're unable to prescribe drugs,
and more likely to give me a kick in
the ass.
-
I'm guessing mentally retarded. But it is a big leap in conclusion.
yes, mental retardation.
-
Just say YES to mental retardation.
-
Are the numbers some sort of estimate? Because clearly a good number
of people will never be DX'd, whether by choice, or simply not knowing.
The number is derived from what is by nature a rough estimate based on the data from 14 states gotten from school districts and regional centers with special ed kids on their rosters.
So, as you all so brilliant point out, the number is UNDOUBTEDLY higher. I see kids around all the time who are on the spectrum and no one has diagnosed them.
There will also be false postives: being diagnosed incorrectly.
The number is not necessarily higher, it is dependent on how good the diagnosis is.
ie. diagnosis of cancer also contains false postive and negative results, but diagnosis would be much more accurate so there would be less of these.
I would say that the sample size is large enough for a reasonable estimate.
-
It depends on the criteria for the estimate. If you follow the DSM closely, the numbers will be lower.
As for spotting un-dx'd folks, I believe that a problem that some parents sometimes have is that after a while, they start seeing auties everywhere, and that just isn't the case. It's not THAT easy to dx anyone.
Not even Flo.
-
It depends on the criteria for the estimate. If you follow the DSM closely, the numbers will be lower.
As for spotting un-dx'd folks, I believe that a problem that some parents sometimes have is that after a while, they start seeing auties everywhere, and that just isn't the case. It's not THAT easy to dx anyone.
Not even Flo.
I think I made that mistake at first, too. It's easy to spot people who you suspect may be exhibiting ASD traits, but as we all know, it's not that simple and, it seems that, people with a few traits are actually fairly common, even though they do not fit all the criteria for a proper diagnosis.
-
Probably the case. But the fact that it is a spectrum,
makes me think that there are quite a few people
fairly far along on it - even if they don't meet all
the criteria. I'm pretty sure most of the people
that I've been close to, throughout my life,
have been somewhere near the line - none
of them worse than I am (I guess), though
I may have been casual buddies with a
couple of guys who surpassed my
level of social difficulty.
-
How wide the spectrum is, is such an arbitrary question that even the classic psychology fallback of "does it significantly disrupt your life" isn't very reliable, because it depends a lot on an individual's level of ambition.
-
But if it effectively limits your level of ambition, then it does disrupt your life. You can get used to a wheelchair to the point where your daily life works, but you will never win the New York Marathon.
-
In terms of allocating services and resources, what criteria can be used for judging how much disruption is "enough"? In that case it does come back to the DSM, which I suppose is more stable than the average public opinion (meaning what the self-diagnosis judgement comes down to). The ambition limit is just a thing I've noticed while trying to figure out whether my life is "significantly disrupted" by any of my spectrum-related issues, and disagreeing with the people who know me from the outside. Generally I'm told that my life is more disrupted than I consider it.
-
That's what I've been told, too. :-\
-
But if it effectively limits your level of ambition, then it does disrupt your life. You can get used to a wheelchair to the point where your daily life works, but you will never win the New York Marathon.
My ambition is to rule the world. I don't know how much effect AS could have
on such silliness.
-
Better hurry up, you've only got a few decades left.
-
But if it effectively limits your level of ambition, then it does disrupt your life. You can get used to a wheelchair to the point where your daily life works, but you will never win the New York Marathon.
My ambition is to rule the world. I don't know how much effect AS could have
on such silliness.
What a coincidence. It's my ambition, too.
I can settle with just becoming impossibly rich, though.
-
Better hurry up, you've only got a few decades left.
You know some good news?
-
Yeah, you're not immortal. ;D
-
Yeah, you're not immortal. ;D
Let's hope. I haven't seen any evidence for it so far.
-
Well if you do turn out to be immortal, would you mind transplanting my living brain into your body? I promise you can be as dead as you like in my corpse.
-
Well if you do turn out to be immortal, would you mind transplanting my living brain into your body? I promise you can be as dead as you like in my corpse.
You want me to EAT your brain?
Sounds a little odd, but ok.