More adults are wondering if they have autism. Here are tips to seek a diagnosis

But if he skips going to the gym for an hour and a half every day, he becomes overwhelmed with feelings of depression and failure.

“It’s like no gym, no day,” he said. “...

Geez- that sounds like me.

everyone is keen to blame their failures on a condition or something.

Yes there are reasons certain people behave the way they do but modern people are going to great lengths to remove responsibility of their own actions and behavoir

The internet has been a big help in supplying information to folk who have grown up having to work hard to live in a world designed for 'norms' (for want of a better term).

For legal matters and the like, you may need an official diagnosis. But in general, it's not difficult to self analyse the multiple aspects of your life that suggest you are a bit further down the neurological spectrum.

As an adult you will have been through enough social grief and awkward moments, and learned to mask yourself as best you can. That may be evidence enough. A diagnosis might be an extra weapon in your armoury for surviving the hell of small talk, parties and the nonsensical ways norms appear to enjoy wasting their time. But if you have survived this far without being locked up, shunned, or becoming a hermit, well done. It's not easy. Just keep working on it. Be aware of your needs and limits, and protect yourself from difficult situations as best you can.

It is a worry that society may well become less tolerant in the future, the way things are going. Migrants and tourists may only be the first groups to function as scapegoats. Looking ahead, being officially labelled may be more of a problem than a solution.

Yes there are reasons certain people behave the way they do but modern people are going to great lengths to remove responsibility of their own actions and behavoir

Having a mental health condition in no way makes a person able to avoid responsibility for their actions, for those affected (or that think may be affected) the responsible thing to do is to deal with that. This can mean having a proper medical evaluation and if necessary treatment, therapy or other measures put in place so they can function properly in society.

For those that have undetected conditions a diagnosis can mean a huge difference, including better social relationships.

Having a mental health condition in no way makes a person able to avoid responsibility for their actions,

Legally, it does actually.

Legally, it does actually.

For anybody interested in assuming responsibility because of the possibility of a condition the first step is to get seen by a professional. The law simply recognizes diminished capacity to take decisions, for a person that actively wants to escape responsibility the best course of action is to avoid being diagnosed, then it can also avoid taking the measures that come with being diagnosed with the condition.

Zulander...yep...its the new "get out of jail free card " in some Australian courts.

Cases usually "dismissed " with neither a finding of guilt or innocence.

I hope RFKjr will get to the bottom of finally determining the cause of the increasing rates of autism.

finally determining the cause of the increasing rates of autism.

We already know the cause. Doctors have gotten better at diagnosing it. That's all.

https://www.statnews.com/2023/03/23/autism-epidemic-cdc-numbers/

So there's not much for RFK Jr. to get to the bottom of (except antivaxx drivel).

l. The law simply recognizes

The law simply recognises diminished responsibility. Black and white. Doctor shop till you get a diagnosis. So yes, people can avoid responsibility, and also make demands for being treated in a specific way or have allowances made for their "condition".

This does not imply that such conditions do not exist or that they dont merit special treatment before you go off on a troll about that.

The point is, the getoutofjailfree card for various scenarios, is too attractive and too easy to obtain.

I hope RFKjr will get to the bottom of finally determining the cause of the increasing rates of autism.

That is well known, better detection means the rates of incidence have not changed, just people are diagnosed when before it was ignored. Also RFKjr is well known for lying and never accepting when he is demonstrated wrong, so the only thing he would do is to insist on a mistake.

The law simply recognises diminished responsibility. Black and white. Doctor shop till you get a diagnosis.

Someone that wants to be responsible? get a diagnosis and new responsibilities (like undergo therapy and treatment) that will be used in court to demonstrate he is (or not) doing what is required from him.

So yes, people can avoid responsibility,

Which again would require the person to avoid being diagnosed so he will not do anything to control the condition. You claim completely depends on ignoring this very obvious fact.

The point is, the getoutofjailfree card for various scenarios, is too attractive and too easy to obtain.

Except that it is not, because a diagnosis comes with many consequences and if for example the person is found not to be able to be responsible for his actions it is required to get someone that does. Searching for a diagnosis means making it much more difficult to act irresponsibly.

I wonder if there has been any research on the rates of diagnosis with people PAYING to see someone, and the rates of diagnosis with people NOT PAYING to see someone? Is it possible that cash has some influence in diagnostic rates? (If the number of patients were the same). Especially where a psychiatrist earns a living from seeing patients. Would a patient be just as happy to pay 3000 dollars and to walk away with. NOPE. YOUr not autistic. Would the person feel cheated? Annoyed they wasted 3000 dollars. Increasing awareness is one thing, but when do we say, actually it is normal? and what purpose does it serve, apart from the label. The US has a history of over diagnosing and over prescribing. The being sane in an insane place was a good bit of research too. And probably could be replicated again.

That is well known, better detection means the rates of incidence have not changed, just people are diagnosed when before it was ignored. 

The "detection" does not necessarily a person has autism. This is well known.

I hope RFKjr will get to the bottom of finally determining the cause of the increasing rates of autism.

That is well known, better detection means the rates of incidence have not changed, just people are diagnosed when before it was ignored.

Yeah, they are better at detecting it, but that only accounts for a tiny fraction of the cases. But of course that is the narrative they push because they don't want us to look at the actual causes.

Also RFKjr is well known for lying and never accepting when he is demonstrated wrong, so the only thing he would do is to insist on a mistake.

Nah, he is always accused of lying or being wrong, but those are typical baseless accusations. In court or through FOIA requests, he is often proven correct.

The law simply recognizes diminished capacity to take decisions, for a person that actively wants to escape responsibility the best course of action is to avoid being diagnosed, then it can also avoid taking the measures that come with being diagnosed with the condition.

Wrong.

The law recognizes the defense of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.

The "detection" does not necessarily a person has autism. This is well known.

Better detection means that patients are recognized much more easily, it makes no sense to think this means any particular person "must" have autism just because those that do can be detected more easily.

Yeah, they are better at detecting it, but that only accounts for a tiny fraction of the cases.

No, it does not. This would explain why you make this claim without any supporting evidence.

Nah, he is always accused of lying or being wrong,

He is always accused and proved, which is why it is not taken seriously. He said he did not profited from his antivaxxer group, until it was proved he did, he promised not to touch the vaccine schedule in order to have a vote, just to do the opposite very quickly. It has famous segments where he is proved lying in his face.

https://apnews.com/article/childhood-vaccines-schedule-kennedy-trump-hhs-4d5e6c52c602f5edbcd837748605e9d0

Wrong.

The law recognizes the defense of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.

That would not make the quoted text wrong, that is even exactly what the first part means, which in no way refutes the fact that this determination comes with measures that the patient has to take, such as have a person that can be made responsible taking care of him.

I hope RFKjr will get to the bottom of finally determining the cause of the increasing rates of autism

Is your PhD and/or area of research as a working scientist related to this at all?

I find that the standard, garden-variety, groupthink, conspiracy theorist take is that vaccines are linked to autism.

What do you think in your professional opinion?

That would not make the quoted text wrong, that is even exactly what the first part means, which in no way refutes the fact that this determination comes with measures that the patient has to take, such as have a person that can be made responsible taking care of him.

You are also wrong with your opinion:

Having a mental health condition in no way makes a person able to avoid responsibility for their actions, for those affected (or that think may be affected) the responsible thing to do is to deal with that. 

As stated above, it is well-known a mental health condition allows a person to legally avoid responsibility.

It's the law.

I hope RFKjr will get to the bottom of finally determining the cause of the increasing rates of autism

RFK is a conspiracy crank with a partially eaten brain and no training in the sciences.

He’d be better suited in another area. I’m sure I’ll think of one given enough time.

Re " reduced capacity " in Criminal Law.

Up to the prosecution to refute /disprove the claim made by defendant...most dont try /cant be bothered...hence the claim usually survives and the Judge accepts it.

Dont try it too many times though...limit to the Courts patience/indulgence.

What actually happens in Court is more "practical " than "ideological ".

Only Superior Level Courts even take things like "precedent " into account .

You are also wrong with your opinion:

Not an opinion but an argument and since you could not make even one argument to prove it is wrong it means it remains valid.

As stated above, it is well-known a mental health condition allows a person to legally avoid responsibility.

Is the same mistaken argument you already tried to use and that in no way refutes mine, a person that suspect to have a mental condition and that wants to act responsibly will try to get diagnosed so something can be done about it, for example get a guardian to take the responsibility if the patient can't.

What actually happens in Court is more "practical " than "ideological ".

This of course in no way contradicts the fact that a person that wants to act responsibly will try and get a diagnosis as soon as possible, one of the many benefits obtained is to remediate any kind of reduced legal responsibility.

Not an opinion but an argument and since you could not make even one argument to prove it is wrong it means it remains valid.

Your argument that derives from your opinion, so therefore, your opinion, was easily proven wrong above.

Is the same mistaken argument you already tried to use and that in no way refutes mine, a person that suspect to have a mental condition and that wants to act responsibly will try to get diagnosed so something can be done about it, for example get a guardian to take the responsibility if the patient can't.

Your opinion that a mental health condition allows a person to legally avoid responsibility is legally and therefore factually wrong.

Your argument that derives from your opinion

No it does not, it is a logical conclusion from what is described, it is very simple to see how this is the case as you have been completely unable to refute it with any argument, just calling it wrong without demonstrating it with arguments.

Your opinion that a mental health condition allows a person to legally avoid responsibility is legally and therefore factually wrong.

That is not my opinion nor my argument, it is yours. You are calling your own argument wrong.

My argument is clear and has been written several times already:

 a person that suspect to have a mental condition and that wants to act responsibly will try to get diagnosed so something can be done about it, for example get a guardian to take the responsibility if the patient can't.

My wife strong suspects I have it, and she's probably right. But apart from satisfying my curiosity, there's not much point in getting a diagnosis one way or the other at my age. In any case, finding a qualified doctor who can diagnose it in English here in Japan is probably more trouble and cost than it's worth. Doing it in Japanese might be possible, but I wonder whether the language gap would interfere with the result.

I'm pretty skeptical about whether it has anything to do with vaccines, but would consider it if enough valid evidence came to light.

@Footage

We already know the cause. Doctors have gotten better at diagnosing it. That's all.

https://www.statnews.com/2023/03/23/autism-epidemic-cdc-numbers/

LOL yeah, the absolute explosion in autism rates over the past few decades is purely due to "better diagnosis" nothing to see here, folks! By that logic, medieval peasants must have had autism too, we just didn't have enlightened modern doctors to spot it between bouts of bubonic plague!

The reality is, we've gone from a handful of childhood vaccines to a bloated schedule of MANDATORY jabs, and you're kidding yourself if you're pretending that has zero correlation.

Oh, and you'll relate to this one Footage - don't forget the self-diagnosed "victims" who use autism as a convenient excuse for being socially inept instead of, you know, developing basic life skills.

But hey, if calling any questioning of this "antivaxxer drivel" makes you feel smart, go for it champ.

RFK is a conspiracy crank with a partially eaten brain and no training in the sciences. 

He’d be better suited in another area. I’m sure I’ll think of one given enough time.

Brilliant The Guardian subscriber stuff there Jim - dismissing anyone who questions the narrative as a "conspiracy crank" while (as usual) offering exactly ZERO counterarguments. Impressive.

Meanwhile, the same people who lap up every government press release without question are probably the same ones who told us Iraq had WMDs, lockdowns would stop would just "flatten the curve," and a man can get pregnant.

But please, if you're going to take some time to come up with an "area" where you think RFK belongs, how about looking in a mirror and asking yourself where you belong in the grand hierarchy of useful thinkers?

LOL yeah, the absolute explosion in autism rates over the past few decades is purely due to "better diagnosis" nothing to see here, folks! 

You have presented zero evidence to refute this very clear scientific conclusion, pretending your personal belief is enough to refute clear data is not valid, logical or believable.

The reality is, we've gone from a handful of childhood vaccines to a bloated schedule of MANDATORY jabs, and you're kidding yourself if you're pretending that has zero correlation.

Vaccines have been proved to be safe and effective and even more, to not have any relationship with autism, some reports even point out that vaccinated children have lower rates of autism. Believing the opposite of what is proved only means you are mistaken, and try to mislead other people to make the same mistake.

Oh, and you'll relate to this one Footage - don't forget the self-diagnosed "victims" who use autism as a convenient excuse for being socially inept instead of, you know, developing basic life skills.

If a professional in mental health makes a diagnostic while random anonymous people on the internet call it just an excuse people could not be blamed about ignoring the internet source and trusting much more someone that actually have a degree and medical authority to provide a diagnosis.

Brilliant The Guardian subscriber stuff there Jim - dismissing anyone who questions the narrative as a "conspiracy crank" while (as usual) offering exactly ZERO counterarguments. Impressive.

When you provide zero evidence of what you claim, and instead say this is because of an impossible global conspiracy that includes every single institution of medical science of the world then it is completely valid to call this being a conspiracy crank, that is the same excuse used by creationists and flat earthers to supposedly justify their antiscientific belief. People that actually present scientific evidence are the ones that don't need to use the conspiracy excuse and are not called on it.

Zero arguments.

Zero evidence.

Just claiming that the world doctors and scientists are wrong because known liars say so...

LOL yeah, the absolute explosion in autism rates over the past few decades is purely due to "better diagnosis" nothing to see here, folks! By that logic, medieval peasants must have had autism too, we just didn't have enlightened modern doctors to spot it between bouts of bubonic plague!

Jay, generally I agree with your posts, but I think a little more nuance is needed here. Look, there could indeed be some factors that are causing much higher rates of positive autism diagnoses nowadays, such as food additives, formula vs breast milk, and maybe other environmental contaminants. Also, autism is a pretty broad-spectrum condition, ranging from the non-verbal sort that a friend's daughter has (apparently there's a family history of it, so there could be a genetic link to some extent), to your Rain Man savant, to the high-functioning, high-masking type, formerly classed as Asperger's. A proper diagnosis can take quite some time and expense, too, and more is being learned about it all the time.

My layman's take is that it's always been around, but the population explosion has made it more numerically apparent, and deeper study of it has made it easier to identify autism from a variety of other conditions. There's more to it than just being socially awkward - partly it's how people process sensory and intuitive information, deal with stress, establish patterns of behaviour and deal with changes to routines, and a lot more. There's a lot more recognition, but no real treatment, just accommodations to make life less stressful. There's no magic pill for it, either.

But please, if you're going to take some time to come up with an "area" where you think RFK belongs, how about looking in a mirror and asking yourself where you belong in the grand hierarchy of useful thinkers?

I have some knowledge of manufacturing, mechanical engineering and electrical engineering but far from an authority. Certainly haven’t read half of the books ever written on these areas.

You are a specialist on WW2 and your scholarship is both commendable as well as absolutely extraordinary.

However, not useful backgrounds for the position RFK holds. RFK doesn’t have a suitable background either and he’s told us part of his brain has been devoured.

Furthermore, conspiracy theorists tend to be stunted adults and in my experience, very dishonest - could be related to a childish view of how to behave. Making up credentials which are transparently false, spamming social under different handles etc.Not the best among us.

I’m not sure conspiracy theorists should be employed in any capacity but perhaps that’s cruel, but the problem is you can’t trust them.

Vaccines have been proved to be safe and effective and even more, to not have any relationship with autism, some reports even point out that vaccinated children have lower rates of autism. Believing the opposite of what is proved only means you are mistaken, and try to mislead other people to make the same mistake.

Right, the pharmaceutical industry - one of the most powerful, profit-driven industries on the planet - would NEVER lie or manipulate data to protect its bottom line.

Let's ignore the skyrocketing rates of chronic illness, the explosion of autoimmune disorders, and the fact that the childhood vaccine schedule has more than quadrupled in the last few decades... with NO long-term safety studies.

As for autism, the CDC itself quietly removed language claiming there was "no link" between vaccines and autism after legal pressure.

Jay...should we ignore longevity and communicable diseases dropping too.

Right, the pharmaceutical industry - one of the most powerful, profit-driven industries on the planet - would NEVER lie or manipulate data to protect its bottom line.

The data that proves vaccines are completely unrelated to autism do not come from any industry, it comes from multiple groups around the world including many that are completely separated from any company.

The conspiracy you keep trying to use as an excuse is impossible.

Let's ignore the skyrocketing rates of chronic illness, the explosion of autoimmune disorders, and the fact that the childhood vaccine schedule has more than quadrupled in the last few decades...

Again, you present zero evidence of every claim you make, it is all "source: Just trust me bro". Humans now live the longest, healthiest lives ever, all thanks to medical science, including the vaccines.

*As for autism, the CDC itself quietly removed language claiming there was "no link" between vaccines and autism after legal pressure.*

That does not change the fact that there is no link, proved beyond any doubt.

Thinking that science can be decide by court order is a sign of a deeply biased antiscientific way of thinking.

If a court order made NASA say that the moon is not proved not to be made of cheese that would not make that possibility less ridiculous either, it only help proving that one single country is now dominated by antiscientific groups in power.

My argument is clear and has been written several times already:

It's not clear, and you saying it is clear certainly doesn't make it so.

But you argued as below, which is patently not true:

Having a mental health condition in no way makes a person able to avoid responsibility for their actions, for those affected (or that think may be affected) the responsible thing to do is to deal with that. 

And further, you are saying a person with a mental health condition should be responsible and deal with it.

Ahh, no.