Major autism study uncovers biologically distinct subtypes, paving the way for precision diagnosis and care
www.princeton.edu
The research is a transformative step toward understanding the condition's genetic underpinnings and potential for personalized care.

Real title: major autism study uncovers biologically distinct subtypes

But if you read it, thats not what they did. They just re-taxonomized it as multiple different things. This is a good thing but it feels silly to call it a “discovery.”

Like dude, the guy who mastirbates in public and slams his head into walls when he’s frustrated doesnt have the same thing as the guy who started reading at 3 and really likes birding.

It should not have taken this long for the people who fund science to acknowledge this but I’m glad they finally did and…

Here’s the real discovery: those dudes have different genes! Thats right, the first one is non-heritable! Its not even the same thing biologically.

So if they have different presentations and different biologies, why are we calling them both autism??!

I know aspergers was a bad dude but I feel like having a different name for it communicated something important.

Here’s another implication: the people self diagnosing as autistic on TikTok were actually following the rules for autism that clinicians set out: there are no rules and its anything that makes you seem wrong to normies. The big sin of the TikTok self-diagnosees/rs was declaring that the emperor has no cloths!

  • PKMKII [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    13·
    18 days ago

    Like dude, the guy who mastirbates in public and slams his head into walls when he’s frustrated doesnt have the same thing as the guy who started reading at 3 and really likes birding.

    Tagline!

    • Fossifoo [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      6·
      18 days ago

      The thing is: they just might. They might actually even be the same person. Almost as if it was a spectrum with a multitude of different axis of which you have several different expressions…

      I have so many issues with this paper. If you read if you can see that their re-classification is very coincidental as well. They try multiple ways to group the data and then pick the one that fits to something “interpretable” by them: support need. But it turns out that the data they put in also classifies some things by support needs. So, they found a structure in their output data that reinforces the structure that they have already fed in? Congrats.