need help with math problem

[Calandale]

Ah. I forget the different laws of different countries.
AFAIK, in the US, you can't use that term without
an MD in psychiatry.

[zer0]

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.

[Calandale]

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.

[zer0]

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.

[Calandale]

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.

[El]

I'm guessing mentally retarded.  But it is a big leap in conclusion.

yes, mental retardation.

[Calandale]

Just say YES to mental retardation.

[Kosmonaut]

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.

[odeon]

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.

[DirtDawg]

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.

[Calandale]

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.

[Pyraxis]

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.

[odeon]

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.

[Pyraxis]

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.

[odeon]

That's what I've been told, too.