I'm pretty sure its changed names a few times because they're all just a blur to me. But the official diagnosis is Autism Spectrum disorder currently I think. At least that's what it was when I...
I'm pretty sure its changed names a few times because they're all just a blur to me. But the official diagnosis is Autism Spectrum disorder currently I think. At least that's what it was when I was recently-ish diagnosed
Colloquially people still use Aspergers if they were diagnosed prior to the DSM-V-TR. Honestly I'm a bit torn on this issue (outside of the clinical field) - I think it's important to recognize...
Colloquially people still use Aspergers if they were diagnosed prior to the DSM-V-TR. Honestly I'm a bit torn on this issue (outside of the clinical field) - I think it's important to recognize that a particular person's ASD might be less severe than another person's, yet still on the spectrum. Simply stating "mild" or "high-functioning" autism or a low score should suffice, but it's hard to change the language and people might think "mild autism" similar to people claiming they are "OCD" when they have no real diagnosis and are simply very neat or mildly obsessive about some things.
Not exactly denaming. More like acknowledging that there're a series of previously separated disorders that have more in common than it seemed before. Recent discoveries may have the same...
Not exactly denaming. More like acknowledging that there're a series of previously separated disorders that have more in common than it seemed before. Recent discoveries may have the same happening with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, since they have sides at the genetic level that would suggest they're related.
Psychology is a very modern science, with little more than 100 years under it's belt, after all, so finding that there're different disorders, or issues that we can group is relatively normal.
Which kind of makes sense. I'd prefer is the DSM-V was used more widely as well, but it's a very big book, first of all, and there's a handful of other issues: (1) students that were studying...
Which kind of makes sense. I'd prefer is the DSM-V was used more widely as well, but it's a very big book, first of all, and there's a handful of other issues: (1) students that were studying during the DSM-V announcement/release would either have to switch halfway through, or right after studying, (2) official policies need to be changed (e.g. hospital-specific policies, city/state/country specific policies) to align not just with the changes in DSM-V, but also to test the changes to see if they make sense. The ASD discussion is one worth having, but there's some things that are debatable.
Likewise, past versions had homosexuality etc as a disorder, which the DSM rightfully is critiqued on heavily. So obviously it's not like some faultless bible, but just a manual. And on that subject, it's often presented as a diagnostics manual, but it's not: it's more description/statistics, sometimes without proper scientific basis. It can be helpful, but it's by no means perfect.
I am incredibly late to the reply and I'm sorry, but I wanted to continue the discussion so here goes: The official policies is a great point. And yes, some things are debatable and it could be a...
I am incredibly late to the reply and I'm sorry, but I wanted to continue the discussion so here goes:
The official policies is a great point. And yes, some things are debatable and it could be a great in-depth discussion, but, as it is, the DSM-V makes some great changes that should at least be backported into current usage now, like the changes to the disphoria entry.
And you are totally right that the DSM should not be treated as a diagnostic manual...but the reality is, it often is, so updating as quickly as possible to the best version so far would be of help.
But again, you are totally right, it is a big change that can't sadly happen overnight.
(and I'm even later to the reply!) I just wish there was some way to update it better/faster, or to have something like point releases that fix/add quick things. Like a DSM 5.1 or something that...
(and I'm even later to the reply!) I just wish there was some way to update it better/faster, or to have something like point releases that fix/add quick things. Like a DSM 5.1 or something that then means some parts are changed but you don't need to release an entire separate book. Or better yet, that governments/hospitals get their acts together and actually perform medicine based on evidence, & make a way to keep reviewing that (there's some policies here in the netherlands based on the first research that came out ever on subject x, so smaller sample sizes etc, but while the policies remain the same because it's easier, research has shown since then that it's either unnecessary or that there's more nuance). As is we get stuck in these patterns that are held on to for decades, sometimes wellllll beyond when we know we shouldn't be.
I'm split on this. Should we honor the work of scientists and people in general even if they do imoral things I mean a lot of people supported ugenics when that was considered science should we...
I'm split on this. Should we honor the work of scientists and people in general even if they do imoral things I mean a lot of people supported ugenics when that was considered science should we change names for all of them. I definitely haven't figured out my own answer to this question.
Maybe, but one must not forget that definitions change with history. Nowadays, when we think about eugenics we think about the NEGATIVE eugenics used by nazis and North American (Yes, USA flirted...
Maybe, but one must not forget that definitions change with history. Nowadays, when we think about eugenics we think about the NEGATIVE eugenics used by nazis and North American (Yes, USA flirted with Eugenics, too)... but we must not forget the POSITIVE eugenics proposed by Galton originally.
I think the spectre of Nazi Germany is too fresh in peoples' minds to even consider positive eugenics 'eugenics' as such. What do we mean when we refer to eugenics? We act on genetic preferences...
I think the spectre of Nazi Germany is too fresh in peoples' minds to even consider positive eugenics 'eugenics' as such. What do we mean when we refer to eugenics? We act on genetic preferences all the time, in pheromones and attractiveness and so on. Society agrees on it implicitly when allowing late-term abortions of babies with Downs Syndrome. It's also very possible to be opposed to the 'race realist' crowd while looking forward to a Gattaca-like future. The topic is an open wound yet if you read things like Mukherjee's 'The Gene' with it in mind, and think about CRISPR-like tech...
Anyway, I think it is a discussion best held privately, as not one of you reading this knows anything about my views (centre-left as they might be).
And I'm fairly sure /u/Kat recognises your position (note the use of 'in vogue').
I don't necessarily support renaming works, but I believe education needs to go with it. Not sure how that would honestly work logistically, but it'll be nice that the teaching of these subjects...
I don't necessarily support renaming works, but I believe education needs to go with it. Not sure how that would honestly work logistically, but it'll be nice that the teaching of these subjects are more rounded. Don't know how that applies here, since I don't believe the average person learns about him in school.
A bit of a tangent, in Canada, we've been having these exact conversations about Sir John A MacDonald - first prime minister of Canada, also pivotal to residential schools. Of course, I don't believe he should be erased from history, but I believe we should be teaching more about what he did, and not just "nice" side.
So many of the people we've been taught about have done horrible things, either because we now consider them horrible due to the shift in morals, or because they've always been horrible but as it...
So many of the people we've been taught about have done horrible things, either because we now consider them horrible due to the shift in morals, or because they've always been horrible but as it was "the enemy" it didn't matter.
That doesn't mean they didn't have moments of greatness, or produce research and other works that are notable, but the other side should be taught as well and they shouldn't be seen as the hero's and pioneers they are sometimes seen to be.
Should we start burning books that were written by bad people too, through the lens of whatever we consider moral in the modern era? I really dislike the movement to remove or alter history rather...
Should we start burning books that were written by bad people too, through the lens of whatever we consider moral in the modern era? I really dislike the movement to remove or alter history rather than teach it and learn from it.
Because his name is scrubbed from the syndrome and so less people learn about him? The history of how Aspergers was first diagnosed doesn't change just because the man was accused of being a Nazi....
Because his name is scrubbed from the syndrome and so less people learn about him? The history of how Aspergers was first diagnosed doesn't change just because the man was accused of being a Nazi. I counter-question, how would not changing the name of the syndrome affect my everyday life as an American-Jew?
His name will not be "scrubbed", it just won't be the most up-to-date name. I genuinely think this one article alone will teach more people about the history of Asperger and Wing than casual...
His name will not be "scrubbed", it just won't be the most up-to-date name. I genuinely think this one article alone will teach more people about the history of Asperger and Wing than casual Googling of Asperger's syndrome ever would. Changing the name would have an even bigger educational effect.
And I don't know, I'm also an American Jew, changing or not changing this name would have zero effect on my life. But clearly some people care, that's why we're talking about this. When I hear about requests like this, I do a simple pro/con analysis.
Pros:
Publicly demonstrate that scientific achievements don't erase crimes
Publicly reaffirm that the ends do not necessarily justify the means
Promote awareness of the history of the field and Nazi involvement, maybe prompt some people to learn more about it.
Recognize Lorna Wing, a relatively unknown scientist more deserving of the honor
Make some people happy by acknowledging and symbolically correcting a historical wrong
Cons:
Maybe some mild confusion. I don't think this is a big deal, medical terms change frequently, and "Asperger's syndrome" won't disappear from the world, it just won't be the most up to date term
Make some people unhappy by changing which historical figure this syndrome is named after
I don't believe anyone has suggested that we do. This is simply a conversation about correctly representing history. It's important to recognize it in context and to view it through today's lenses.
Should we start burning books that were written by bad people too, through the lens of whatever we consider moral in the modern era?
I don't believe anyone has suggested that we do. This is simply a conversation about correctly representing history. It's important to recognize it in context and to view it through today's lenses.
This wouldn't be the first case of a nazi's name being removed from his work. Julius Hallervorden and Hugo Spatz, prominent Nazi scientists, discovered Pantothenate kinase-associated...
This wouldn't be the first case of a nazi's name being removed from his work. Julius Hallervorden and Hugo Spatz, prominent Nazi scientists, discovered Pantothenate kinase-associated neurodegeneration. Up until recently, it was known as Hallervorden–Spatz syndrome, and I personally don't believe anything of value has been lost. Taking part in a genocide grossly overshadows all the good they did in their life, and being forgotten is exactly what they deserve.
And they don't need to be totally forgotten. Just represented as they should be in history books - active participates in pain and suffering of others.
And they don't need to be totally forgotten. Just represented as they should be in history books - active participates in pain and suffering of others.
No one is as simple as one act. Are we really going to start erasing history and removing names from the veritable temples because the future finds the past distasteful?
No one is as simple as one act. Are we really going to start erasing history and removing names from the veritable temples because the future finds the past distasteful?
History is already correctly represented as can be seen by the very fact that we are able to talk about the various circumstances of, say, his life. Removing the pharoah's names from the temples...
History is already correctly represented as can be seen by the very fact that we are able to talk about the various circumstances of, say, his life.
Removing the pharoah's names from the temples is not serving anything but vanity.
I wouldn't saying honouring someone as a hero when they're not (as viewed by the general public, hand-wavy, I know...) is correctly representing history. Also not saying that's the case here,...
I wouldn't saying honouring someone as a hero when they're not (as viewed by the general public, hand-wavy, I know...) is correctly representing history. Also not saying that's the case here, since I'm not really of the opinion that having a disorder named after you is an honour.
It's more than vanity though. It's recognizing that we now recognize a wrong that has happened.
I did not realize we did that at all. Guess because people still use Aspergers.
Thanks for the info.
I'm pretty sure its changed names a few times because they're all just a blur to me. But the official diagnosis is Autism Spectrum disorder currently I think. At least that's what it was when I was recently-ish diagnosed
That does explain things a bit. Thanks for the info.
Colloquially people still use Aspergers if they were diagnosed prior to the DSM-V-TR. Honestly I'm a bit torn on this issue (outside of the clinical field) - I think it's important to recognize that a particular person's ASD might be less severe than another person's, yet still on the spectrum. Simply stating "mild" or "high-functioning" autism or a low score should suffice, but it's hard to change the language and people might think "mild autism" similar to people claiming they are "OCD" when they have no real diagnosis and are simply very neat or mildly obsessive about some things.
Self-diagnoses happens online with basically every mental disorder out there.
Not exactly denaming. More like acknowledging that there're a series of previously separated disorders that have more in common than it seemed before. Recent discoveries may have the same happening with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, since they have sides at the genetic level that would suggest they're related.
Psychology is a very modern science, with little more than 100 years under it's belt, after all, so finding that there're different disorders, or issues that we can group is relatively normal.
There is also the fact that while the DSM-5 is now 5 years old, a lot of professionals still use the DSM-4.
Which kind of makes sense. I'd prefer is the DSM-V was used more widely as well, but it's a very big book, first of all, and there's a handful of other issues: (1) students that were studying during the DSM-V announcement/release would either have to switch halfway through, or right after studying, (2) official policies need to be changed (e.g. hospital-specific policies, city/state/country specific policies) to align not just with the changes in DSM-V, but also to test the changes to see if they make sense. The ASD discussion is one worth having, but there's some things that are debatable.
Likewise, past versions had homosexuality etc as a disorder, which the DSM rightfully is critiqued on heavily. So obviously it's not like some faultless bible, but just a manual. And on that subject, it's often presented as a diagnostics manual, but it's not: it's more description/statistics, sometimes without proper scientific basis. It can be helpful, but it's by no means perfect.
I am incredibly late to the reply and I'm sorry, but I wanted to continue the discussion so here goes:
The official policies is a great point. And yes, some things are debatable and it could be a great in-depth discussion, but, as it is, the DSM-V makes some great changes that should at least be backported into current usage now, like the changes to the disphoria entry.
And you are totally right that the DSM should not be treated as a diagnostic manual...but the reality is, it often is, so updating as quickly as possible to the best version so far would be of help.
But again, you are totally right, it is a big change that can't sadly happen overnight.
(and I'm even later to the reply!) I just wish there was some way to update it better/faster, or to have something like point releases that fix/add quick things. Like a DSM 5.1 or something that then means some parts are changed but you don't need to release an entire separate book. Or better yet, that governments/hospitals get their acts together and actually perform medicine based on evidence, & make a way to keep reviewing that (there's some policies here in the netherlands based on the first research that came out ever on subject x, so smaller sample sizes etc, but while the policies remain the same because it's easier, research has shown since then that it's either unnecessary or that there's more nuance). As is we get stuck in these patterns that are held on to for decades, sometimes wellllll beyond when we know we shouldn't be.
I'm split on this. Should we honor the work of scientists and people in general even if they do imoral things I mean a lot of people supported ugenics when that was considered science should we change names for all of them. I definitely haven't figured out my own answer to this question.
Maybe, but one must not forget that definitions change with history. Nowadays, when we think about eugenics we think about the NEGATIVE eugenics used by nazis and North American (Yes, USA flirted with Eugenics, too)... but we must not forget the POSITIVE eugenics proposed by Galton originally.
I think the spectre of Nazi Germany is too fresh in peoples' minds to even consider positive eugenics 'eugenics' as such. What do we mean when we refer to eugenics? We act on genetic preferences all the time, in pheromones and attractiveness and so on. Society agrees on it implicitly when allowing late-term abortions of babies with Downs Syndrome. It's also very possible to be opposed to the 'race realist' crowd while looking forward to a Gattaca-like future. The topic is an open wound yet if you read things like Mukherjee's 'The Gene' with it in mind, and think about CRISPR-like tech...
Anyway, I think it is a discussion best held privately, as not one of you reading this knows anything about my views (centre-left as they might be).
And I'm fairly sure /u/Kat recognises your position (note the use of 'in vogue').
I don't necessarily support renaming works, but I believe education needs to go with it. Not sure how that would honestly work logistically, but it'll be nice that the teaching of these subjects are more rounded. Don't know how that applies here, since I don't believe the average person learns about him in school.
A bit of a tangent, in Canada, we've been having these exact conversations about Sir John A MacDonald - first prime minister of Canada, also pivotal to residential schools. Of course, I don't believe he should be erased from history, but I believe we should be teaching more about what he did, and not just "nice" side.
So many of the people we've been taught about have done horrible things, either because we now consider them horrible due to the shift in morals, or because they've always been horrible but as it was "the enemy" it didn't matter.
That doesn't mean they didn't have moments of greatness, or produce research and other works that are notable, but the other side should be taught as well and they shouldn't be seen as the hero's and pioneers they are sometimes seen to be.
Definitely. We should be able to learn and discuss all parts of our history.
That's a good point. I don't know much about his history so can't say, but I do agree that context definitely matters.
Should we start burning books that were written by bad people too, through the lens of whatever we consider moral in the modern era? I really dislike the movement to remove or alter history rather than teach it and learn from it.
How would changing the name of this syndrome affect what people learn from history?
Because his name is scrubbed from the syndrome and so less people learn about him? The history of how Aspergers was first diagnosed doesn't change just because the man was accused of being a Nazi. I counter-question, how would not changing the name of the syndrome affect my everyday life as an American-Jew?
His name will not be "scrubbed", it just won't be the most up-to-date name. I genuinely think this one article alone will teach more people about the history of Asperger and Wing than casual Googling of Asperger's syndrome ever would. Changing the name would have an even bigger educational effect.
And I don't know, I'm also an American Jew, changing or not changing this name would have zero effect on my life. But clearly some people care, that's why we're talking about this. When I hear about requests like this, I do a simple pro/con analysis.
Pros:
Cons:
I don't believe anyone has suggested that we do. This is simply a conversation about correctly representing history. It's important to recognize it in context and to view it through today's lenses.
This wouldn't be the first case of a nazi's name being removed from his work. Julius Hallervorden and Hugo Spatz, prominent Nazi scientists, discovered Pantothenate kinase-associated neurodegeneration. Up until recently, it was known as Hallervorden–Spatz syndrome, and I personally don't believe anything of value has been lost. Taking part in a genocide grossly overshadows all the good they did in their life, and being forgotten is exactly what they deserve.
And they don't need to be totally forgotten. Just represented as they should be in history books - active participates in pain and suffering of others.
No one is as simple as one act. Are we really going to start erasing history and removing names from the veritable temples because the future finds the past distasteful?
I think there's a huge difference between erasing history and correctly representing it.
History is already correctly represented as can be seen by the very fact that we are able to talk about the various circumstances of, say, his life.
Removing the pharoah's names from the temples is not serving anything but vanity.
I wouldn't saying honouring someone as a hero when they're not (as viewed by the general public, hand-wavy, I know...) is correctly representing history. Also not saying that's the case here, since I'm not really of the opinion that having a disorder named after you is an honour.
It's more than vanity though. It's recognizing that we now recognize a wrong that has happened.