the rise in people identifying as autistic and diagnoses could be connected the fact that we created a non functioning society that only values extraverted people who are willing to lie and hurt others
Or it could be the strict formalization of psychiatric studies, combined with the more broad based diagnosis and categorization of the school aged working class. We’ve invested more labor and professional expertise in analyzing public education and its consequences, so we’re picking up on a wider variety of psychological variants and aptitudes.
That neurodivergence is pathologized primarily because it runs counter to functioning in a capitalist society
Capitalists are more than happy to profiteer off of neurodivergence both coming - via commodification of prodigy and other unusual pools of talent - and going - via medical marketing and “normalization” therapies. I wouldn’t say it runs counter to capitalist social agendas, because nothing runs strictly against an agenda that is fixated exclusively on maximizing future profit. We’re continuing to invent exciting new ways to exploit people’s psychological differences, always with an eye towards alienation, segregation, and surplus extraction. Identifying and capturing neurodivegent individuals and squeezing them for their productive value has been a big part of the modern Finance Sector and Silicon Valley projects.
in a world where struggling to make eye contact doesn’t get you disqualified in job interviews…
We’re creating a world in which everyone interfaces through computers, where individuals are encouraged to self-segregate and alienate one another, and where information is constantly mediated through attention-grabbing infographic spectacles that reward the users for engagement.
This is not a system designed to exclude individuals with autism. This is a system designed to feed on them.
Or it could be the strict formalization of psychiatric studies, combined with the more broad based diagnosis and categorization of the school aged working class.
Is autism diagnosis really that formalized?
I was tutoring psych the other day, and the book the student had still claimed that women were much less likely to be autistic. It’s fascinating how many women don’t get diagnosed well into their thirties. It makes me really wonder what is being used to diagnosis autism, and how much of it might be affected by the tester’s bias and beliefs.
(Personally, I’ve always wanted to be tested but the 12 month plus waiting list and the $5k not covered by insurance means that I’ll probably continue going through the rest of my life without any form of work accommodation…)
(Personally, I’ve always wanted to be tested but the 12 month plus waiting list and the $5k not covered by insurance means that I’ll probably continue going through the rest of my life without any form of work accommodation…)
Not unusual for kids to be picked out in grade school and referred for further diagnosis. But yeah, I can definitely get not wanting to bother going out of pocket on something like that as an adult. Not unless there’s a pressing need.
True facts. Unlike things like Fragile X Syndrome that have clear sex-based biological mechanisms behind prevalence rate differences (see below for example), I think the gender discrepancies don’t actually exist for most Disabilities. Raise all kiddos without racialized and gendered societal expectations, and prevalence rates will mostly come out in the wash (this is a broad sweeping statement that completely lacks nuance, but work with me).
(Example: people with 1 X chromosome present Fragile X Syndrome more frequently because there is only 1 X chromosome to carry the genetic load of the X chromosome, typically people with 2+ X Chromosomes present less (unless multiple copies carry it) because the non-affected X chromosomes can pick up the slack).
Or it could be the strict formalization of psychiatric studies, combined with the more broad based diagnosis and categorization of the school aged working class. We’ve invested more labor and professional expertise in analyzing public education and its consequences, so we’re picking up on a wider variety of psychological variants and aptitudes.
Capitalists are more than happy to profiteer off of neurodivergence both coming - via commodification of prodigy and other unusual pools of talent - and going - via medical marketing and “normalization” therapies. I wouldn’t say it runs counter to capitalist social agendas, because nothing runs strictly against an agenda that is fixated exclusively on maximizing future profit. We’re continuing to invent exciting new ways to exploit people’s psychological differences, always with an eye towards alienation, segregation, and surplus extraction. Identifying and capturing neurodivegent individuals and squeezing them for their productive value has been a big part of the modern Finance Sector and Silicon Valley projects.
We’re creating a world in which everyone interfaces through computers, where individuals are encouraged to self-segregate and alienate one another, and where information is constantly mediated through attention-grabbing infographic spectacles that reward the users for engagement.
This is not a system designed to exclude individuals with autism. This is a system designed to feed on them.
Is autism diagnosis really that formalized?
I was tutoring psych the other day, and the book the student had still claimed that women were much less likely to be autistic. It’s fascinating how many women don’t get diagnosed well into their thirties. It makes me really wonder what is being used to diagnosis autism, and how much of it might be affected by the tester’s bias and beliefs.
(Personally, I’ve always wanted to be tested but the 12 month plus waiting list and the $5k not covered by insurance means that I’ll probably continue going through the rest of my life without any form of work accommodation…)
Certainly moreso than a generation ago.
Not unusual for kids to be picked out in grade school and referred for further diagnosis. But yeah, I can definitely get not wanting to bother going out of pocket on something like that as an adult. Not unless there’s a pressing need.
Primarily children of one gender presentation, to this day. Which again, makes me very curious as to the validity of the “autism” construct.
True facts. Unlike things like Fragile X Syndrome that have clear sex-based biological mechanisms behind prevalence rate differences (see below for example), I think the gender discrepancies don’t actually exist for most Disabilities. Raise all kiddos without racialized and gendered societal expectations, and prevalence rates will mostly come out in the wash (this is a broad sweeping statement that completely lacks nuance, but work with me).
(Example: people with 1 X chromosome present Fragile X Syndrome more frequently because there is only 1 X chromosome to carry the genetic load of the X chromosome, typically people with 2+ X Chromosomes present less (unless multiple copies carry it) because the non-affected X chromosomes can pick up the slack).