Autism

Happy Tuesday,

I did make such a claim, but I reckon/imagine that any experiment conducted to test the hypothesis would be unavoidably confounded due to the nature of the subject-- how are you going to formulate a fool-proof and unquestionable experiment process for this? I'm interested to hear any ideas you might have, but any I could come up with seemed confounded enough to not even be worth mentioning, but perhaps someone more acquainted with such experiments could devise a sufficient method.

Statistics and scientific value aside, I stand by my statement because, in a very loose sense, it is generally applicable as a truth-y function, where certain assumptions are made:

• Assume demographic is generally highschool-graduate education level
• Assume relevant research literature present to demographic is diluted, second-hand-- majority might primarily source info from blogs, media articles, WebMD and perhaps available scientific literature secondarily (not their fault, science publication access is criminally shit)
• Assume little or sparse general exposure to relevant clinical cases among majority
• Assume minority of <20% have relevant experience in the field or have otherwise underwent traditional schooling/training to attain career with exposure

So yes, while I did think the wording up on the spot, I have given the topic consideration prior and following my post. And I still stand by it, though perhaps I could be more concise: the majority of individuals who seek to diagnose themselves do not typically possess the insights and familiarity necessary to reach a sound diagnosis. Furthermore, a professional qualified to diagnose others might refrain from diagnosing themselves due to experience. Therefore, it can safely be assumed that the majority of individuals who engage in self-diagnoses of neurological symptoms will inaccurately characterize their condition.

I hope that helps. Have a good one.