Strange things happen when you apply the statistical methods of economics to medical science. You might say you get dismal science, but that's a bit glib. You certainly get some strange claims — like the contention of three economists that autism may be caused by watching too much television at a tender age. It gets stranger still when you look at the data upon which this argument is based. The as yet unpublished Cornell University study, which will be presented Friday at a health economics conference in Cambridge, Mass., is constructed from an analysis of reported autism cases, cable TV subscription data and weather reports. Yes, weather reports. And yet, it all makes some kind of sense in the realm of statistics. And it makes sense to author Gregg Easterbrook, who stirred the blogosphere this week with an article about the study on Slate, provocatively (and perhaps irresponsibly) titled "TV Really Might Cause Autism."
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1548682,00.html
some rather notable opinion pieces:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_kendra_p_061021_tv_as_the_cause_of_a.htm
http://www.slate.com/id/2151538/
this is obviously a correlation study done by a non-medical team. it's an example of attributing a condition to one of the historical factors that sprung up in the meantime.
however, i don't see that only babies who later are diagnosed with autism are watching television at 6 months.
maybe autism was brought about by the effects of world war II.
or maybe autism could have been aggravated by barbie dolls.
i predict that if the authors publish this paper in a peer-reviewed journal, they will get slammed for a lack of scientific method. this study just doesn't pass the smell test and is an unreasonable conclusion.


Comments: 8
These folks apparently studied another book.
Joanne makes a valid observation about the agenda of scientists studying socially disabling behavior who are on drug company payrolls.
It is my opinion many of the children diagnosed with these problems simply have not been disciplined at home and teachers and administrators do no wish to take the one on one time to help.
i agree that the definitions for adhd are rather liberally applied. for one thing, some children who are "curious" stand out from their peers but have been labeled adhd.
they have not developed tests for adhd or add or aspergers, the practitioners only use the tests they have for other stuff.
they need more definitive research than that.
i just went through testing at age 55. and i have a psych degree, so i'm familiar with the tests that were given. they documented that i have a high iq, that i have excellent problem-solving skills, that i have excellent recall of meaningless junk, lol.
they showed also that although i am right-handed, i perform better with my left hand, in tapping. so what. i'm not going to get a job tapping something. i type at around 100 wpm so i'm fine there. but the score was in the low range. and that was the only low range, everything else was very high, higher than most normal people.
but there is no test to tell that i have aspergers because it's a social thing. if you tell me a joke, i don't usually get it. if you say something and your body language or actions say something different, i don't know what to do, so i go for the literal verbal meaning. i don't discuss what kind of nail polish is best. i don't chitchat. i don't protect myself from office politics because i can't read it.
i don't network. i don't make friends well.
i just do my job, whatever it is.
they have done little research on a lot of disabilities and many people who have one also have one or two related others. you should see how they diagnose adhd. they do tests. if you are intelligent but are not performing up to this level, then they diagnose you with adhd. i don't know about you, but i didn't find k-12 extremely challenging. i was interested in stuff that was not age-appropriate, it was more adult interests. i read the newspaper at 5 years old. i liked horses and politics and words (i read the dictionary) and read a book a day. school felt like dick and jane for me. i was reading college-level stuff by sixth grade.
but i have met people with adhd for real and they do have problems doing stuff. they can't focus on things. they are here one minute and there another. people usually treat them as "flakes". they aren't respected by anyone.
the same happens with asperger people. we are nerds. only 20% of us are employed. we can do the work but no one gives us a chance. we sometimes get involved too much in the detail of stuff and can't finish because the project gets smaller and smaller rather than progressing.
none of these things are definitive.
they are only recently starting to stumble across some brain activity stuff where aspies and autistic people show differences from the normal population.
yeah, in my own situation, they're gonna give me voc rehab. i have an appointment about it tomorrow.
i have 3 degrees. will they come up with an $8/hour job for me?
my recommendations are that i get on some anti-depressants and anti-anxiety pills. the anti-depressants might help me quit smoking so i'm fine with that. but i think my lack of income causes the depression and anxiety.
i'm down here in arizona and i feel like moving home with my family. and i'm 55 years old. they're in washington state. i love it up there but the weather is awful and wet and i have difficulty with that.
His intelligence seems to be normal.
that's the difference with aspergers. i talked early and i related to adults. i wasn't a kid like other kids were kids. in fact, i didn't really have a childhood. it was more like a little adult-hood, lol.
Correlation does not imply causation.