Norton Internet Security 2006 by Apokrif serial key or number

Increase in autism[edit]

From the article: There has been an explosion worldwide in reported cases of autism over the last ten years. In the last decade, the population of the United States has increased by 13%. There has been an increase in non-autism-related disabilities of 16%. The increase in autism diagnoses is %.
However, the accompanying chart seems to suggest numbers that are a lot larger. How come? Junes , 24 August (UTC)

Great catch! Those statistics are based on the twenty-first report to congress by the U.S. department of education (which was probably in one of the references). Anyway, I updated the passage with newer numbers and clarified the source of statistics in the image --Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 24 August (UTC)

I think it's a little confusing and would be much improved by replacing it with data that simply shows the number of diagnosed cases per year. Tempshill , 24 August (UTC)

I can do that in the image - would you suggest doing the same in the article or stating the percentage of what the image shows in the article? --Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 24 August (UTC)

OK, I think I did a decent job this time - now I'm using a numerically-based image and I just reworded the first paragraph to not use statistics --Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 24 August (UTC)

This is an Excellent page.

"TO ALL: THANKS MUCH, FOR THE INFO HERE"

(My stepson has Aspergers)

Scotty

This article is very long. , 24 August (UTC)

I'm 22 years old, and I'm still autistic. This has always been an issue for me, and evidently, there is no known cure. I don't see how I can cope with it. Cedric J. Lessig pm, 27 Jan

How can autistic people like me get health insurance? &#;Gm pm, 21 March

Dr Patricia Rodier, And Her Research Into Brain Stem/HOX Gene Links[edit]

First of all, forgive me if my edit is not up to usual Wikipedia standards, as I am a complete newcomer and have only just created an account! However, I was compelled to add to the talk discussion on this article. Under the section on "Brain Trauma", there is no mention of Dr Patricia Rodier and her work on the connections between the microstructures (and deviations from the norm thereof) of the brain stem and autistic spectrum conditions. Her work was covered in great detail in an article in Scientific American (issue dated January ), said article having been made public domain: the article is called The Early Origins Of Autism (click link to be taken to the article, and note that the text formatting on that page is not conducive to easy reading!). I have been in touch recently with Dr Rodier, and from her correspondence was motivated to contact Siemens Medical with respect to the possibility that MRI scanners may have the necessary resolution to home in on these brain structure changes as a diagnostic tool. Siemens Medical kindly sent me (via snail mail) a huge sheaf of documentation covering their MRI scanner systems, and scanner technology is, according to this documentation, approaching the resolution needed for such an application. I would consider it appropriate to add references to Dr Rodier and her work in this article (at the moment my editing skills are insufficient for me to undertake this task) and so if there is anyone associated with this page who could perform the requisite editing while maintaining the high standard of the article, I would be grateful for their time and effort in this endeavour.

The article expands upon the brain stem changes and couples them to HOX genes, said coupling having been demonstrated experimentally in the laboratory using transgenic mice. Again, an addition to the article mentioning this would be welcome.

As for my own compelling interest in this topic - I was diagnosed in late adult life with an autistic spectrum condition. As can be seen from the above, it need not necessarily constitute a cognitive impairment! Calilasseia , 24 August (UTC)

Kim Peek appropriateness?[edit]

Is the inclusion of Kim Peek appropriate in this article? As the Kim Peek article says, "Kim Peek was born with macrocephaly and missing corpus callosum." This is not autism. Or, rather, he may be autistic, too, but these other problems are not problems of autistics. And his picture is on the front page of Wikipedia in the context of the autism article. Tempshill , 24 August (UTC)

Yes, the picture choice was unfortunate (I thought the temple gradin one or one of the others would get picked). Also, I'm fairly sure that Peek is not behaviourally autistic either which makes it even more peculiar. IIRC the Rain Main movie took Kim Peek as an example and modified it to be an autistic savant, thus the confusion (I'm not sure who modified the caption to read an autistic savant but I really do not believe its accurate). --Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 24 August (UTC)

OK, I fixed the factual error in the image caption --Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 24 August (UTC)

What is the source that Kim Peek was (impliedly) the chief inspiration for Rainman? I attended a discussion led by Dr. Rimland several years ago, in which he said that his own son was a major model for Dustin Hoffman in portraying Raymond. Dr. Rimland said that his son's first reaction to meeting Hoffman in person was to tell him "You look older than your picture." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® , 24 August (UTC)

I'll source that too I guess --Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 24 August (UTC)

Word Choice?[edit]

Would it be more correct to say "Persons with Autism" rather than "Autistics"&#;? I remember when I worked at a tutoring center for children with Down's, Tourette's, Autism, we had to say "Children with Autism" and such (As the main teacher would say: "They're people first, Autism is part of who they are.")

Just a question&#;:) User:Kvidell

Actually, "persons with autism" is offensive to autistics. It would be like saying "persons with deafness" or "persons with homosexuality" or "persons with left-handedness". --Jose

• Autism is sort of an exception to the rule, as autistics is a more well-known term. For example, even on Asperger's syndrome you'd say "People with Asperger's syndrome", but the term autistics is so well known and is a dictionary term in a lot of dictionaries that it is generally more expected to say autistic rather than "People with autism". --Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 25 August (UTC)

The way I understand it: Some autistic people prefer to be called "autistics" or "autistic people" because person-with language is used for illnesses (a person with AIDS, for instance.) It gives the impression that the autism is something that can be removed. --Bluejay Young , 15 September (UTC)

It might make sense, but then we use person-with language on the Asperger's page. Some people might get offended, but then many more will simply not understand if we use "aspie" or something. Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 15 September (UTC)

Most parents I've worked with prefer child with autism to "autistic" -- I can't say it's "generally more expected" to say "autistics." And I don't know that saying "person with" gives the impression that autism can be removed -- i.e., person with diabetes, person with artificial limbs

Certainly, the parents prefer "child with autism". They want to believe that the child exists separately from his or her neurology. I'm not saying that what the parents want doesn't matter, but they have to face reality sooner or later. --Bluejay Young , 18 December (UTC)

Please don't generalize too much -- I'm a parent of a person on the spectrum, and my wife and I strongly prefer the "autistic person" form (as does our offspring), and do many other parents we are in touch with through various blogs and forums. -- DaveSeidel , 19 December (UTC)

I think it comes down to choice. I've been diagnosed with autism since and I use both forms. Among autistics, that's what I say and how I think of myself but when I talk to professionals and parents I usually use the 'person with' form so that people don't get hung up by terminology but listen to what I have to say. (Lindsay Weekes, 24 September )

OK - I did a bit of cleanup on this subject and explained it in the text also. Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 24 September (UTC)

As a reference to readers, see the person-first terminology article. Neurodivergent , 15 December (UTC)

I think this reflects part of the controversy: whether autism is a trait (difference) or a handicap (deficit). I don't think we can resolve this issue here, but the article needs to make it clear there are two different ways to see it. I'm not sure, but I imagine something can be gleaned from the way deaf people view things. --Leifern , 19 December (UTC)

I think the reason Asperger's Syndrome is treated differently is because it's two words. There are some people who feel the terms "aspergian" or "aspergic" are appropriate, however many others feel that AS is just another flavour of autism and any new term would be redundant. I personally describe myself using the terms "I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome" and therefore "I am autistic" or "I am an Aspie". I almost never say "I have AS". If anything, it has me.&#;:-/ , 12 January (UTC)

The primary distinction in this case is not the word itself but rather wether one uses "am"/"is" or "have" when refering to Autism/Aspergers. Am and is imply a personality (a concept I agree with being an Aspie) where as have impyls a disease that can be cured. I really quite like User sentiment that AS has me. Symmetric Chaos , 28 February (UTC)

The Kim Peek Photo[edit]

I would like to register a complaint about using the Kim Peek photo for the front page of Wikipedia. The photo plays to the prejudice that people with a disability or exceptionality are, of necessity, "odd" looking. This affirms in the popular mind that "different" means "abnormal" in a readily identifiable physical sense, which leads to a very unhelpful objectification of human beings. Some disabilities are accompanied by physical manifestations, some are not. Autism does not have any characteristic appearance. Why did we not use the picture of Temple Grandin, who is quite deeply autistic, or of the "little professor"? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® , 24 August (UTC)

I agree. The choice of that picture is unfortunate. Guettarda , 24 August (UTC)

I don't know maybe I should talk to Raul about it? --Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 24 August (UTC)

Well, it's water over the dam now, but I'm not sure Raul would have used it if he had thought about it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® , 24 August (UTC)

Considering Kim Peek is the most famous autistic person, I don't really see what there is to object to. If the featured article was "President of the United States", I would probably use a picture of George Bush, because despite the fact that he's truely awful (in my not-so-neutral point of view) it's clearly related. For the same reason, Kim Peek was the obvious choice of the pictures on this page. &#;Raul , August 24, (UTC)

Also, while I'm on the subject, we're supposed to avoid fair use images on the main page, which automatically excludes 3 of the 5 photos in this article. &#;Raul , August 25, (UTC)

Except Kim Peek is not technically autistic (its an unfortunate incident in history that the rain man character was modified) also the temple gradin photo is not fair use IIRC. Anyway, thanks for your hard work Raul&#;:). --Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 25 August (UTC)

Um, yes, Kim Peek is autistic - he's an autistic savant. Hell, his own article says so. &#;Raul , August 25, (UTC)

Yes, and that was wrong too which I changed hours ago --Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 25 August (UTC)

It appears you are in fact correct [2], so I've reverted back to your version. &#;Raul , August 25, (UTC)

When did Kim Peek become "the most famous autistic person"? In the community of those familiar with autism, I would say Temple Grandin is the "most famous." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® , 25 August (UTC)

Kim Peek is possibly more familiar to those who are not familiar with autism, maybe (despite it being a common misperception/stereotype). Even though Temple Grandin is more well-known to professionals/autistics I think when a lot of normal people think autism they think of the movie "rain man". An interesting conversation, though - as I thought Temple Grandin was more well-known worldwide now goes to show something about the staying power of hollywood I guess&#;:) --Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 25 August (UTC)

I'm an Asperger autistic, I've been reading about autism since '84, and I never heard of Kim Peek. When Rain Man came out, I read that the character was based on several people including a pair of autistic savant twins (George and Charles, Oliver Sacks wrote about them) and Joe Sullivan. Hoffman actually got to know Sullivan and a couple of other autistics as well as Kim Peek. As Peek is not autistic I agree that the picture should be changed, and I agree with the suggestion that Temple Grandin's picture should be used since she is autistic, a public figure, and as ar as I know, non-controversial. --Bluejay Young , 15 September (UTC)

Facilitated communication[edit]

Woa, woa, woa! Where the heck is the section on Facilitated communication? this was a huge "leap" in communication for those with autism; schools were set up, classes trained, methods implemented. However in double blind studies years later proved it completely bunk. This isn't a moot issue for autism, this was a Big Deal(tm). There should be something on it in here. JoeSmack(talk) , August 24, (UTC)

Well then, this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia "anyone can edit," soooo -- Cecropia | explains it all ® , 25 August (UTC)

Be sure to include the fact that facilitated communication does work for a very small number of autistics, as an intro to doing their own typing. The way it works in real life is not very similar to the way it was touted. It was originally developed as a way of helping spastics to type. There are probably some online autistics who can explain how it's used. --Bluejay Young , 15 September (UTC)

In fact, I have more to say about FC now that I know someone I trust in my circle of internet acquaintances is using it. If you want to know about valid and legitimate use of FC, go to Ballastexistenz. She not only explains it, but she also explains how some autistic people really can do one-fingered typing without looking at the keyboard. It is a skill, similar to standard touch typing. --Bluejay Young , 13 May (UTC)

And if you want to watch her do it, go here: manicapital.com

I think her current address is ballastexistenz at autistics dot org if you have any questions. --Bluejay Young , 21 May (UTC)

Kim Peek picture removed[edit]

As discussed it as too little to do with the article to say for completeness here it is along with the source for the rain man claim

1. ^"Kim Peek-The Real Rain Man". Retrieved July 30,

I've reverted for the reasons I just stated above - Kim Peek *is* the most famous autistic person. It clearly belongs in the article. &#;Raul , August 25, (UTC)

Again, I ask: in whose estimation? Peek is perhaps the most notable example of what is called "autistic savantism," though that was a sort of PC modification of the prior term, which was "idiot savant." But savantism is exceedingly rare in autism, though it has the most interest among the great unwashed masses. Rainman is a very good movie concerning autism, but in real world terms, Temple Grandin is an actual autistic, was perhaps the first to be able to give insight into autism from the POV of one with a severe case of the disorder. She helped raise autistics from the status of freak-show curiosity, specifically using her autistic skills to create revolutionary (and widely used) methods for the human treatment of food animals. Fame by Hollywood should not be encouraged. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® , 25 August (UTC)

A Possible Contributor to the Recent Increase in Autism[edit]

A researcher, Dr. Rochelle Newman, at the University of Maryland recently found that TV background noise slows the development of a baby's ability to distinguish words, such as her/his name. I suggest that this might explain some of the increase in autism. References:

[1]

and The Washington Post, April 24, , p. B5 Pdn , 25 August (UTC)

Hey, yes -- let's allow perfectly unsubstantiated ideas for causes of autism. Why bother with science and data when you can just read a Washington Post article and figure this all out for yourself?

There's no need to snark. It's a common mistake to confuse language developmental delay with autism, plenty of doctors confuse the two or consider language delay to be "on the spectrum". --Bluejay Young , 15 September (UTC)

History[edit]

"Very few physicians today solely use the DSM-IV criteria for determining a diagnosis of autism, which are based on the absence or delay of certain developmental milestones. Many physicians instead use an alternate means (or a combination thereof) to more accurately determine a diagnosis."

"Physicians" ought to be changed to "clinicians" in both cases, yes? Although physicians may at times initially earmark a kid for diagnosis, diagnosing is done by clinical psychologists, not general medical doctors. I've never seen a doctor administer a kid an ADOS at a yearly checkup.

Possibly. Much of that sentence pair is redundant, if there are other means in use then listing them is useful, in whcih case there would need to be a reason to leave the bit about what physicians or clinicians do _not_ do in. For the moment, I boiled down teh current version a bit - "to establish a diagnosis of" is indistinguishable in meaning from "to diagnose" for instance. -->"Few clinicians today use only the DSM-IV criteria, which are based on the absence or delay of certain developmental milestones, to diagnose autism. " TUrning that into "Clinicians today use as well as the DSM-IV" seems likely to be a further improvement, to me. Should diagnostic criteria be in the History section? Midgley , 22 March (UTC)

Characteristics[edit]

"There is great diversity in the skills and behaviors of individuals diagnosed as autistic, and physicians will often arrive at different conclusions about the appropriate diagnosis."

"Physicians" needs to be changed to "clinicians". Again, physicians are not doing diagnosis.

Hey all - I'm changing this, as there doesn't seem to be any disagreement.

Etymology and Greek script[edit]

I just added a brief etymology of the word "autism" in the history section of the article using a hard copy of the Oxford English Dictionary I happen to have handy. I wanted to make clear that the word "autism" comes from the Greek word for "self" (from which we also get "automatic", "autonomy", etc.) However, in the interests of accuracy, I would like to type the Greek word "autos" using Greek script. However, I have no idea how to do this. Would somebody more familiar with using Greek script on Wikipedia care to do this? The OED's etymology gives it as thus:

alpha - ypsilon (with apostrophe accent above) - tau - omicron (with acute accent) - sigma

Sorry that I don't know the right terminology for Greek diacritics! --Humehwy , August 31, (UTC)

Crypto sensitivity syndrome[edit]

As of , some psychiatric professionals propose redefining Asperger's autism along with some other autistic spectrum conditions and renaming them to "Crypto Sensitivity Syndrome" ^[3]. However, this is somewhat controversial with people, as some believe there are faults in the proposal such as associating fungus in the nails with the syndrome, while many more question the need for a new diagnosis when there are already existing ones ^[4][5].

Are there any more concrete or reputable references for the alleged redefinition of certain autistic spectrum disorders as falling under 'crypto sensitivity syndrome?' A PubMed search turns up nothing referring to such a syndrome, and the only references found via Google are to two webpages published by laypeople, both of whom cite essentially the same relatively unprofessionally written document, and neither of whom provides any reference whatsoever to any discussion within the actual psychiatric community.

Here are the only two real references I could locate; all other mentions on the web refer to one of these two pages.

manicapital.com

manicapital.com~rjkopp/data/manicapital.com

I strongly believe references to this 'syndrome' should be removed from the Wikipedia entry on autism unless further verification can be provided. I've removed it for now.

Sounds fair. I kept it in the article because it was already there, although I admit I had quite a bit of trouble finding references for it. I went ahead and removed the footnotes referenced for it also Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 8 September (UTC)

Excellent writeup on the adults-w-autism part, thanks! Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 8 September (UTC)

I was around, years ago (late '90s), right around when this "cryptosensitivity syndrome" was first being promoted by someone who frequently trolled autism forums trying to stir up trouble. It is his invention. No professionals have ever seriously considered it to my knowledge, to replace autism or Asperger's or anything else. I do not have a reference for it unfortunately except my own blog entry on the topic, manicapital.com?p=11 that I wrote during the time when Crypto Sensitivity seemed to be making a bizarre comeback. It's like an urban myth that's gotten out of control. The person's name, who invented it, was variously Mike Hack or Mike Hackett. Anbuend , 28 May (UTC)

Editing again to say I finally found a fairly typical discussion thread referencing this "syndrome", manicapital.com which if you click "newer" you can read the rest of the discussion. The "cryptose" link is the link to the "crypto sensitivity" criteria, by their creator ("eyreland"). Anbuend , 28 May (UTC)

The Neanderthal theory[edit]

I see that the reference to the Neanderthal was removed a couple of month ago. Looking at the discussion for this it seems like some people obviously with a pro-disorder view of autism wrote in favor of it's removal.

Here are some of the misunderstandings:

1. Autism is present at the same levels in every ethnic group. Not true. Autism is very uncommon in black Africans. It is not uncommon in AFROAMERICANS, but this is another discussion altogether. Asperger's syndrom, which is high-function autism, is very rare in Afroamericans, and everyone basically knows about this. There is NO study of prevalence of AS in the US categorized by racial origin. However, the fact that virtually nobody knows a black Aspie speaks for itself.

2. Neanderthals were disordered if they had autistic traits. This claim of course is nonsense. Neanderthals didn't "have" autism, they originated the differences in social behaviors, the differences in non-verbal communications and the differences in mating and sexuality. This of course did not make them disordered! It is when these traits are out of their original environment that they cause trouble. For instance, in IRL meetings between people with asperger traits there is no evident problem with social behaviors, communication or anything else. They seem to get along pretty well.

3. The single-gene versus multiple-gene reasoning. If autistic genes entered human populations by hybridization, it is clear that it couldn't have been a single gene. It must have been many genes, and these genes are expected to have been diluted into the entire population. The only reason we have higher concentration of these genes in autistics is because of asortative mating. The social differences will lead to asortative mating, and the autistic population is very much involved in asortative mating. The result of the Aspie-quiz, obviously also removed from wikipedia, clearly is indicative that most of the traits surveys show a common feature. They are at their highest in the diagnosed AS-group, lower in self-identified Aspie, end intermediate in AD/HD. In no case is a trait universally present in one group but not in the other. This supports the theory that autistic traits are not something only autistics have. Basically *everybody* has these, and this is exactly what we would expect from ancient hybridization. Aspie-quiz evaluation

So, in conclusion, about the only viable reason why the neanderthal theory were removed is because some people didn't like it. I have no idea why far more implausible theories like Simon-Baron Cohens "extreme maleness" are still there. Aspie males are certainly not at the extreme of the male spectrum. Extreme maleness involves building hierarchies, participating in wars and violence, none of which Aspie males seems to want to indulge in.

I'm tired but (2) is COMPLETE NONSENSE - many autistics get along better in IRC or whatever but there are a bunch who get along better in real life. And to say that even those who IRC " there is no evident problem with social behaviors, communication or anything else" is just plain wrong. The only verifiability is a shaky website with the theory on it by a layperson - which does not make it credible (there has to be some actual scientific backing behind it, ESPECIALLY for a subject like this). If you are going to make the argument here you are going to need references to back up EACH of your claims. Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 8 September (UTC)

I don't particularily see what is nonsense about this. I suppose you have the scientific papers to back up that the problems that exist between autistics and non-autistics are general and apply to both autistic/autistic relations and autistic/non-autistic relations? AFAIK, researchers studying autism does not do this in groups of autistics but in laboratories like they are studying rats!

Besides, we've had a gathering here in Sweden three years in a row targeted for *only* autistics. Close to a hundred autistics participated. I've not yet heard anybody claim their social problems remained in this environment.

Im an Aspie and on every ocassion I have had to talk to other Autistic/AS people I have found communication considerably more difficult. Symmetric Chaos , 28 February (UTC)

And if you cared to study the Aspie-quiz, which also have been banned, you'd notice the questions aren't particularily targeted at disordered behaviors. Most questions concern preferences. Can you perhaps explain to me why behavioral preferences are linked to autism? Does any of the featured theories actually explain anything more than a tiny bit of what autism is? How is it that explaining a tiny bit of autism could be considered scientifically sound? Isn't this a typical example of ignoring evidences?

As the Neanderthal theory is just a theory, it doesn't need massive support to back it up. The usability of a scientific theory to a large part depends if it can predict unknown facts. There are several significant predictions that follows from the Neanderthal Theory:

1. It predicts that autism is linked to probable Neanderthal origin traits like red hair, freckles, RH factor and more

2. It predicts that facebilnd people will do better on Neanderthal faces.

3. It predicts that Neanderthal culture was not typical of modern hunter-gatherers.

4. It predicts the origin of animal domestication

5. It predicts that autistics will get along much better amongst themselves, and will tend to find a partner that is also autistic

6. It predicts the function of various sexual deviations and that these are linked to autistic traits.

7. It predicts that autistic genes will have a peculiar profile. When meassured for within haplotype variability the age will center around 30, to 50, years. When compared to other haplotypes they will be several ,s of years old. This profile is created as Neanderthal DNA went through a bottleneck as it entered modern humans with low-level hybridization. This bottleneck almost eliminated it's diversity, but left it's differences from Hss genes intact.

8. It predicts the reason for low-functioning autism. According to another autism theory, autism is two-factor. One factor is random in nature and creates low-functioning autstics. The other factor is related to the Asperger-profile which creates high-functioning autistics. Using the Neanderthal theory as a basis, it seems rather likely that autoimmune disease and low-functioning autism is related to genetic admixture between different species. When certain genes comes together they will cause disease. This also explains why Afroamericans have high levels of autism and low levels of AS. Afroamericans still posses a lot more of the offensive genes that mostly have been selected out in Eurasian populations.

9. Because it predicts that low-functioning autism is related to genetic admixture between species, it also predicts that the rise in autism, apart from increased awearness, also is related to racial admixture. It would predict that this rise is related to amount of blacks in western countries.

Theories are meant to be disproved, and I haven't seen you or anybody else disprove it. You are just expressing your bad feelings about what the theory implicates.

Finally, you claim I should be able to prove all my points but how could anybody prove points that haven't been researched?

Problem #1 - zero solid evidence on Neanderthal ancesntry in modern humans. All evidence that exists (like mtDNA) are resoundingly against Neanderthal ancestry. Guettarda , 8 September (UTC)

As for problem #1, there is no consensus on this yet. The strict out of Africa theory postulates that there were ZERO input from archaic Eurasian humans. This means *no* gene should show an age above 50, years. There are already several genes that are much older than this and that are rooted in Eurasia. Additionally, there is the probable hybrid from Portugal, the "sudden" appearance of the Upper Paleolithic *in Europe*, and not in Africa. There is not even a consensus if the all the mtDNA lineages really are of African origin. Recent back-migration into Africa is never taken into account when trying to prove the African origin of mtDNA. The M lineage now is believed to be of Asian, and not African origin.

And what about the Neanderthal DNA samples a couple years ago? Didn't they represent haplotypes nowhere near what was found in Europe? Do you have a citation challenging the results?

As for the "no gene older than 50, yearshuh? How does a strict African origin hypothesis mean no genes should be older than 50k? The out of Africa hypothesis does not postulate creation 50k years ago As for backmigration - of whom, and when? I assume from what you are saying is that there is evidence of backmigration from archaic hs populations back into Africa? Again, can you provide some refs for this?

As for where the Upper Palaeolithic first appears - I fail to see your point. Guettarda , 8 September (UTC)

The Neanderthal DNA samples that have been extracted are all from the control regions of mtDNA. While it is true that the Neanderthal sequences have a lot of differences from modern human sequences, it is also a fact that almost every mutation in the Neanderthal sequence can also be found in modern human sequences. You can observe this yourself in this comparison: mtDNA sequences. The other objection to relying too much on mtDNA is thar in a species of crickets that is know to have hybridized, there is no sign of this in mtDNA, while it can be observed in nuclear DNA (see reference in Neanderthal theory section "Could Neanderthals really be a true species?"

The out of Africa theory postulates that no Eurasian gene could be older than the original migration from Africa, which is placed at 50, to 85, years ago. Clearly, if there are older genes in Eurasia they must have entered modern humans from archaics. In Africa, genes could be older of course, but not outside of Africa.

There are several known sources of backmigration into Africa. The most recent ones are from the arabic expansion and the colonization. Other probable back-migrations are of Berbers, which show a close relationship to Iberians. This migration probably occured at the last glacial maximum. Even older occurences are more speculative, but the oldest, indisputable evidences of modern humans are from LiuJiang, China and Israel. In Isreal modern humans were pushed back into Africa, as is evidenced by Neanderthal types here at a later date. Refs for this are part of the Neanderthal theory.

THe point of the Upper Paleolithic as an European phenomen is that an inbred, African, population couldn't possibly in a short period of time do all this technology advances when they had been in statis for ,s of years. This clearly is the result of "hybrid vigor".

• Can you please supply a real ref, not something off your web site, for the mtDNA stuff? DNA sequencing isn't about looking at any given base pair, it's about sequences. Bp's in isolation are meaningless.
• I realise that mtDNA does not show up if the introgression was male neanderthal/female amhs. But the it would show up in the Y-chromosomal geneologies, and again, these are as narrow as mt trees.
• Ok, so by "no gene is older than" you mean, no gene restricted to Eurasia. This is not actually true - not with nuclear genes. Anyway - what genes? Please supply a ref.
• As for the backmigrationscan you supply refs? "There are several known sources of backmigration into Africa" is meaningless. Known by whom? The Berber backmigration is recent, amhs, not archaic.
• Inbred? Statis? "This clearly is the result of "hybrid vigor"". Clearly? Clear to whom? Where has a role for heterosis in cultural change been establishedor even suggested? Who has controlled for a far more obvious driver of cultural change - new environments? There is nothing clear in this conjecture. Far more importantly, if these hybrids were the basis of a new, superior population, that hybrid population would have left an overwhelming genetic footprint. The debate is between whether there is 0% neanderthal contributions to amhs, or whether there is <<1%, an undetectable signature. The difference between 0 and undetectable is real, and is interesting, but if there had been a hybridisation even of any significance, it would be very clearly detectable. Guettarda , 8 September (UTC)

Refs: YPDHA1DRD7Alan TempletonBushmen - one of the "oldest" African population - group with Asiansorigin of Berber

Besides, your claim that there is 0% or <<1% Neanderthal contribution is clearly not based in reality. Genetics doesn't work like that. If an gene like mtDNA is gone, you cannot use it to calculate Neanderthal contribution. There are numerous reasons why mtDNA might be missing even if Neanderthal contribution for different genes range from 0 to %. You cannot gain better figures for Neanderthal contribution simply by sequencing more modern mtDNA. If Neanderthal mtDNA were lost by genetic drift, you can sequence the entire humanity and you will still not find any Neanderthal mtDNA. This does not mean Neanderthal genetic contribution is 0%. We really need relevant Neanderthal nuclear DNA instead, like the DRD4 7R allele, the CFTR gene, the PDHA1 gene, the MOXA1 gene. Until we have those your claims about <<1% contribution is just speculation.

As for the mtDNAs on my site. These are SEQUENCES and not BP. All of them were imported from a large gene-bank. I then estimated a "reference" sequence for PAN, and to make it more readable only differences from the reference sequence are shown. The point is that changes in the control region of mtDNA are not random. Certain sites are "hot spots" that frequently mutate. This makes genealogies only based on partial mtDNA sequences problematic. Basically all the differences between AMH and Neanderthal sequences are in hot spots.

There is a couple of possible scenarios for genes introgressed from Neanderthals:

1. Negative genes. All of these would be gone.

2. Selective neutral genes. Since Neanderthals are minority contributors, most of the neutral genes would also be gone. Mostly genes that are linked to positive genes are retained.

3. Selective positive genes. These could be of % Neanderthal contribution (and introduced to Africa by back-breeding with a selective sweep). They could also be involved in balanced selection with Hss genes.

I think we have gone beside the point. I don't need to prove Neanderthal contribution. As long as there is considerable controversy on this topic among professionals, argument #1 simply is not a problem for the Neanderthal Theory.

Reference: The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum

I'm anything but pro-cure and I think there's not enough evidence to justify including the Neanderthal theory at length in the article -- a brief mention is enough, stating that this is controversial. Plus the fact that in my experience it's so far mostly believers in New Age and otherkin who take the Neanderthal idea seriously. Other people think that Neanderthals are the basis for belief in things like elves and that children with regressive autism might be a source for the changeling myth. This is interesting from a folkloric perspective, but otherwise there isn't yet enough info about Neanderthals to go on. --Bluejay Young , 15 September (UTC)

It's not going in there period. See the talk page archives here and the AfD on the article for why (Hint: original research). Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 15 September (UTC)

• Ryan, the article about the neanderthal theory was not removed, inspite your and other peoples attempts to remove it. I think this merits the inclusion of a brief link on the autism page. --Rdos , 21 September (UTC)

Very well. Note that since it has a wiki article we don't do an external link, rather we just mention the page link in see also, which I've done. Let me know if that looks ok for you Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 22 September (UTC)

I know nothing much about autism and have no axe to grind. However, I was surprised on this article to find the link to RDos's Neanderthal Theory site which appeared to be 'original reseacrh'. Before coming across this bit of the discussion, I did a Google search and after a few minutes' searching couldn't find any refs to this theory that weren't just references to RDos's site. Hence I deleted the Neanderthal Theory refs. From a quick scan, the above discussion seems to me to be discussing the merits of the theory, which is beside the point. If it's original research, however promising, it shouldn't be included in the article. If I shouldn't have done this, please reinstate the links. Ben Finn , 27 December (UTC)

Is there a link to the exact definition of 'original research' in Wikipedia? If something is discussed as much as this theory obviously is here in this talk page, then perhaps it ceases to be 'original research'. I could give examples of other information which only appears in web pages which is notable enough to be encyclopedic. Neurodivergent , 28 December (UTC)

Can we just get some realistic proof from people who are not complete racists. I mean really the guy that started this article wrote that quote "It predicts the function of various sexual deviations and that these are linked to autistic traits." SEXUAL DEVIANTS!?!?!? Symmetric Chaos , 28 February (UTC)

Removed Sensory Integration Dysfunction[edit]

I've changed the wording of the Sensory Integration Dysunction section to make it more neutral. Not everybody agrees with the notion that sensitivity is a dysfunction, and there is virtually no PublMed support for such a disorder. If the treatment for SID is useful it could be included somewhere else without making people believe that sensory problems necessarily must be a disorder --Rdos , 12 September (UTC)

If you have a problem with the wording then you should mention that "some people disagree with the wording of this", not just chop out a perfectly valid wikilink to a "disorder" that probably most professionals agree is part of autism Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 12 September (UTC)

If you could backup the existence of such a disorder it can be left there, but I'm pretty sure you can't. The situation for SID is exactly the same as for Crypto Sensitivity Syndrome. It only exists in the minds of the people promoting the treatments. --Rdos , 12 September (UTC)

Changed to alternative wording. If this is not in Ryans taste either, I propose he add the disclaimer himself, if he has any sense of neutrality (doubtful) --Rdos , 12 September (UTC)

Nah, I'm just the one who got this to featured article status&#;:) I couldn't POSSIBLY be neutral ug. Listen, SID is not accepted as a diagnosis by most phsychiatrists (sp) but the symptoms are for autism, and adding a long disclaimer here mucks up an otherwise unconfusing section. I'll try to shorten it here. Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 12 September (UTC)

Anyway, sorry for being snippy earlier - is the current way OK with you&#;:)? Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 12 September (UTC)

vaccine theory[edit]

This is just another indication that this article has no NPOV. The vaccine theory, popular with PARENTS of autistics has zero support as being credible. Many large studies have been done that cannot confirm it. This should make it obsolete in a featured article about autism, other than as an entry in the historical section. --Rdos , 13 September (UTC)

sigh did you read it? It was rather soundly refuted. It belongs here though because its a very popular theory. Speaking of which it would be nice if you would stop being so combative all the time&#;:). Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 13 September (UTC)

son-rise[edit]

It seems a shame to have the son-rise section in there under treatments and not mention that it has NO empirical evidence to support it, or that the diagnosis of the son the program was named for was questionable. If we're going to include treatments, ought we give a sense of what is and is not supported?

Ditto for the gluten casin -- this is, at best, a controversial treatment. For parents and others coming to this page, a note on the pros and cons and data for these treatments seems vital.

Yes, I agree. I'll look into it, in the mean time feel free to edit it!!! Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 23 September (UTC)

I definitely think gluten and casin should be retained as these actually are things that can make autistics feel better, and without any kind of ABA therapy and without any kind of possible side-effects --Rdos , 24 September (UTC)

Rdos-- "can make autistics feel better" is actually a big claim, and unless there's any data to support that claim it might not be the right information to put up on this page. And I'd argue that gluten-casin diets do have side effects for some kids, like gastrointestinal distress (diarrea, etc). And what about the "side effects" of parents and families wasting time and energy on treatments that don't actually make their kids feel better? Show me some data

[6][7] The main problem is the researchers attempts to try to prove that symptoms of autism are caused by gluten. The objective instead should be to do prevalence studies of gluten sensitivity in autistics. I might include this as a question in Aspie-quiz III. --Rdos , 1 October (UTC)

Thanks for the articles, RDOS. At the very least, it seems worth mentioning that the gluten-casin is controversial. The son-rise, however, has ZERO data to support it, as even the developers acknowledge.

Rdos's challenges[edit]

You've been on other pages saying things like " I disagree as to the NPOV of autism related pages" and "The norm is that questionable treatments are presented in central parts of the articles while anti-cure ideas are at best mentioned in "passing"". So let's address these things here rather on other pages and AfDs, ok?

Here's what you said:

• SID has been retained, and there is absolutely no research supporting this "disorder", neither is it included in DSM. THe only reason it is there is because it supports the negative view of autism
  • SID has not been retained here - the only mention of it is that autism has "symptoms like those found in SID".
• The vaccine theory, although thoroughly discarded in every study, is also retained.
  • And why should it be discarded? At WORST its very historical like the extreme-male brain theory.
• Simon Baron Cohens "extreme maleness" theory is also feature, even if it has zero support in research. About the only supportive evidence is that psychiatry think the male-female ration is AFAIK, this is only because the diagnostic criteria is centered around men. IOW, this is circle reasoning.
  • Again - it doesn't really matter because its a historical theory that was popular a while long ago but not today
• All the disorder-based research has been retained while every other POV has either been deleted or delegated to small sections outside of the main article [] you are required to add material that is in disagreement with this view, whether it is onl hearsay in the autistic community or not
  • Could you please specific? Much of the "disorder-based" research here is historical and even the ones that arn't have many verifiable and peer-reviewed backing them up. I thought the anti-cure perspective was well-represented here. Please give me specific examples.

Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 24 September (UTC)

OK, I guess I will have to defend myself then?&#;;-)

• SID. OK, I suppose the current state is ok. However, it is also mentioned in the "Autism as a spectrum disorder section".
• Vaccine theory and extreme maleness. If you read those sections carefully you will problably understand that they are historical, but they are not presented in historical sections of the article. Causal readers will probably think these are serious and still relevant. Cohen's theory is presented under "models" section, which reads as the current state.
• Disorder perspective. In the "Theories of the etiology of autism", there are a long row of disorder theories, including viral infection, vaccines, brain damage and some others, but the pure difference "theory" is not presented! In the "remedition" section, ABA, son-rise, diet and computers are suggested, but no intervention is not presented! The "autism culture" concept is instead presented in the sociology section. I find this quite problematic, especially for Swedish readers where there is a sociologist named Eva Kärfve that is disputing all neuropsychiatric conditions, and instead blame parents for being bad. This is what I meant when I wrote that disorder-based research were presented in central parts (models, etiology, remedition) while non-cure ideas are in the "sociology" section. Maybe the problems aren't as bad as I presented them, but historical theories should be presented as historical, and the anti-cure perspective should be part of model, etiology and remedy sections. If that is fixed, I guess I will be content&#;;-) --Rdos , 25 September (UTC)

While I'm at it, I suppose I should mention that not everybody believe that the main symptoms of autism, like social differculties, non-verbal communication differculties and theory-of-mind abilities are general. Some believe these are confined to autistic - non-autistic relations only. There is certainly no support for them being general because there is no research on thisRdos , 25 September (UTC)

As a note -- although I think Baron-Cohen's work is EXTREMELY problematic and I don't really buy the "extreme male brain" stuff, I don't think it makes any sense to call it a "historical" approach -- he's out there pushing it NOW. There was a B-C NYTimes full page editorial about a month ago proposing that autism is caused by too much prenatal testosterone (without, of course, much testosterone data, and only the vague "autistic kids are kinda like non-empathetic boys, right?" stuff). His autism as extreme mail brain book is only a few years old. He's submitting and publishing articles on this -- and people are listening. It may not be rigorous, or right, but it's hardly done and over with.

I suppose this is the research methodology that Ryan advocates. As long as it describes autism as a horrible disorder, it obviously doesn't matter if the theories have any substance to the or not. Besides, the only maleness in autism is in diagnostic criteria, which of course is not the truth about autism. --Rdos , 1 October (UTC)

I think Baron-Cohen needs to explain this (from Aspie-quiz I):

• Do you dislike or have difficulty with team sports and other group endeavours? (highest correlation, 63%, and typical female trait to dislike this)
• Do you feel stress, panic or have a brain malfunction in unfamiliar or demanding situations? (46%, apparently anti-male)
• Do you have difficulties judging distances, height, depth or speed? (45%, anti-male)

He will need to do even more exlaining in the new version, where many new questions have received relevance. --Rdos , 1 October (UTC)

*sigh* Please stop quoting that inane aspie-quiz. Anyway, I do agree you have some good points up there. First give me a chance to response though please:

1. "Autism as a spectrum disorder section" - I'm not exactly sure what the problem is here but I can reword it to point to the symptoms of SID rather then it itself
2. "Vaccine theories not historic et al." - that's what NPOV is though - as I said before many people don't consider these historic, so we can't just we say they are. I could try to emphasize that negative points a bit more, maybe in some cases saying that many professionals consider it historic, etc
3. "Disorder perspective" - well, I guess I could. My thought though is that it was just inferred by previous text.

Also, your assertion about me trying to advocate it as a "horrible disorder" is ridiculous - the only reason I haven't responded/changed anything in the article is because of time. Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 4 October (UTC)

The extreme male brain theory does NOT HAVE A SINGLE FUCKING THING TO DO WITH MEN. The extreme male brain theory is based on systemising vs empathising comparasins. It was named the extreme male brain theory because men often fal in systemisizing. Arguments both for and against the theory seem to focus on masculine v feminine traits not the theory itself. Symmetric Chaos , 28 February (UTC)

I agree. The theory has to do with neurological and innate skill differences. Masculinity and femeininity (gender roles) are cultural constructs, and really have little or nothing to do with neurology. The most notable aspect of Baron-Cohen's theory is that it neatly explains the differential diagnostic rate in males vs. females. Neurodivergent , 28 February (UTC)

To rely on the perceived diagnostic gender prevalence of AS is not sound. The theory simply falls apart with this fictive construct. For instance in the thousands of answers I've received to Aspie-quiz, women with a dx have points *higher* score than men. This difference have been persistent in all three version, it did not change much as I wrote more questions (and proposedly added more male traits). It also survived attempts of gender-based correction on questions. It is not very true either that Aspies are not empathic. It seems like highly sensitive and empathic Aspies get big problems. Also, special interests seems to be a male thing, but it only makes up a tiny bit of the traits correlated with the autism spectrum. The typical female problems are simply not part of the dx. --Rdos , 1 March (UTC)

We can't draw too many conclussions from something like that. It's not a randomized sample. Furthermore, I'd bet that the number of males who take the test is much larger than the number of females, correct? (I'm guessing about ?) With those who actually are preocupied enough to take such a test, I wouldn't expect to see much of a difference in scoring across sexes. As to why females score higher, I can only guess that for a female to go and take that test, the severity of the condition needs to be greater (in average). Neurodivergent , 1 March (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is no relation as to who takes the test. Version I: AS/HFA: 70 males, 84 females. Version II: AS/HFA: males, females. Version III: AS/HFA: males, females. Version II: Total: males, females. Version III: Total: males, females. This gives relations of , , for AS/HFA and , for total. None of these are even close to the proposed relation. It is also notable that version III has most answers from people outside of the autistic community (it hasn't been announced there). --Rdos , 2 March (UTC)

Yep, that's counter-intuitive, and I'm not sure how it can be explained. Perhaps you're right, and the diagnostics are biased instead (i.e. parents worry more when a boy isn't talking than when a girl isn't). Neurodivergent , 2 March (UTC)

Another possibility is that given that females talk earlier and socialize earlier in average, this is enough to skew the diagnostic rates. However, when they reach adulthood, the difference disappears. Neurodivergent , 2 March (UTC)

This is all testable, BTW. You could take random general-population groups of males and females (perhaps brother and sister pairs), and give them the Aspie Quiz or the AQ test. Then you'd compare their scores. According to Baron-Cohen, males would score higher in average. Neurodivergent , 2 March (UTC)

Another indication that "self-perception" means a lot is the score distribution. Even though version I was highly experimental, it seems got better selectivity on various questions than follow-ups. It is also interesting that in the first releases, the self-identification group scored higher than the diagnosed group. In later versions this was reversed. I think this is at least partly due to that the first quizes being mostly answered by highly self-aware people, and the latter to less self-aware. Many of the evaluations are available here [[8]] --Rdos , 2 March (UTC)

Neurodivergent, I'm interested in your idea that "for a female to go and take that test, the severity of the condition needs to be greater (in average)". What are you basing this on? Just curious, --Bluejay Young , 2 March (UTC)

That's just the only explanation I could come up with for a greater female score. In other words, some males may go because they're curious. Females may go when they are worried. Neurodivergent , 2 March (UTC)

I could offer some other explainations myself. It might be that females and males have different levels of "self-perception". Females might more easily recognize their own problems, possibly because they are expected to be more social. I don't think the hypothesis that females needs to be more worried holds. There seems to be equal proportions of answers from both diagnosed and undiagnosed, with a slightly higher male-to-female ratio for diagnosed. I think because the dx is geared towards typical male problems, parents will more easily seek diagnosis for a male. --Rdos , 2 March (UTC)

Looking at the referer statistics for version III, there is another indication that dx is gender skewed. For (self/real) diagnosed AS/HFA males score on AS and 82 on NT while females score on AS and 73 on NT. These results are after correction for gender-bias in questions. If you look at the non-AS/HFA, males score 79 on AS and on NT while females score 81 on AS and on NT. IOW, there is a tiny 2 point difference in the "NT-group" while the difference is points in the AS/HFA group. The difference in the NT-group also is only that females get 2 points higher on both scales, while in the AS-group females score 8 points higher on AS-scale and 9 points lower on NT scale --Rdos , 2 March (UTC)

face processing/gaze abnormalities[edit]

It seems worth adding in some of the face processing abnormality in autism in the characteristics section, probably under social development. The lack of normal eye contact is such a big diagnosis indicator for autism and one of the big things that gets people into doctor's offices. There's also really great eyetracking and imaging data on abnormal face processing in autism -- i.e., kids with autism fixating on people's mouths when speaking to them rather than the eyes, lack of normal brain activation to faces, etc This seems like a big part of the social deficits of autism, and right now it isn't even mentioned.

What do you think?

Good point. It would be great if something like that was expanded. I'll try to look into it when I have time, but to anyone - feel free to add it yourself! Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 28 September (UTC)

Face blindness is not a big part of "social deficits" of autism. It has 48% correlation. Eye contact is even less correlated with a mere 37% correlation

Here are traits with higher correlation:

• Do you have problems distinguishing voices from background noise, or from other voices? (57%)
• Do you notice small sounds that others don't, and feel pained by loud or irritating noise? (56%)
• Do you have values & views that are either very old-fashioned or way ahead of their time? (53%)
• Do you more easily get very upset over 'minor' things (e.g. losing your favourite pen) than over which others get upset about (e.g. a relative passing away)? (52%)

Reference

I see no aparent "deficit" behind this, nor any role for testosteroneRdos , 1 October (UTC)

A) Please stop using your own site as a reference, Rdos. B) What I see there is original research without sources. Ryan Norton^{T | @ | C} , 1 October (UTC)

I can use it as references as much as I want. The Aspie-quiz builds on nearly answers, so it is relevant. I will publish the current version as original research with far-reaching consequences for Baron-Cohen and his supportersRdos , 1 October (UTC)

Face processing differences/difficulties support: Ovid MEDLINE(R) Dawson G. Webb SJ. McPartland J. Understanding the nature of face processing impairment in autism: insights from behavioral and electrophysiological studies. [Journal Article] Developmental Neuropsychology. 27(3), reduced attention in autistic kids to the eyes, slower behavioral processing of faces, slower brain processing of faces as shown by ERP.

Ovid MEDLINE(R) Dalton KM. Nacewicz BM. Johnstone T. Schaefer HS. Gernsbacher MA. Goldsmith HH. Alexander AL. Davidson RJ. Gaze fixation and the neural circuitry of face processing in autism. [Journal Article] Nature Neuroscience. 8(4), Apr. less attention to the eyes, less face-related brain activity (fusiform face area and amygdala)

Schultz et al., submitted for publication Schultz, R.T., Win, L., Jackowski, A., Klin, A., Staib, L., Papademetris, X., Babitz, T., Carter, E., Klaiman, C., Fieler, A., Volkmar, F., submitted for publication. Brain Morphology in Autism Spectrum Disorders: an MRI Study. -- less fusiform face area to neutral faces than typically developing individuals. The degree of FFA activation WAS CORRELATED WITH SOCIAL IMPAIRMENT AS MEASURED IN THE SOCIAL DOMAIN OF THE ADOS.

Ovid MEDLINE(R) Schultz RT. Developmental deficits in social perception in autism: the role of the amygdala and fusiform face area. [Review] [ refs] [Journal Article. Review] International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience. 23(), Apr-May. -- Review of brain research, eyetracking research, etc. on face processing abnormalities in autism.

There are different ways to find your product key depending upon your situation. In most cases, you do not need the product key to update your Norton subscription. If your Norton product is expired or shows incorrect subscription days, then you may need to download the product from your account which has the current subscription. For detailed instructions, read Download and install Norton from your account.

If you see a message "Invalid Product Key" while activating Norton, read Message "Invalid Product Key".

You can find your product key based on how you obtained your Norton product. Choose one of the following:

For more help, contact Member Services & Support.

Contact us

Help us improve this solution.

Thank you for helping to improve this experience.

What would you like to do now?

Browse for solutions, search the Norton Community, or Contact Us.