One thing I noticed on the AQ test is a number of questions which don’t clearly relate to any of the direct symptoms, but are chosen apparently because these things correlate with Asperger’s/Autism.
For instance, the statement “I find numbers fascinating”. This may well correlate with Autism, but I bet it correlates even more strongly with an interest in math or math-heavy sciences. That math olympians nearly all answered yes to this question, doesn’t really tell us anything new about the correlation between math and AQ. The fact that this question is scored positively for AQ has built the correlation assumption into the test.
There are some less obvious examples such as “I see patterns all the time”. I would wild-ass guess that at least 2-3 points of the gap between the math heavy groups’ scores and the population average scores are represented by answers to questions that are not related directly to symptoms, but are personality/brain traits correlated with symptoms, which also happen to be highly useful for doing math.
True, but the fact remains that 7⁄11 = 64% of the students who scored 32+ were diagnosed with AS by psychiatrists, presumably that vindicates the assumptions, to the extent that you trust the DSM-IV diagnosis as a benchmark.
to the extent that you trust the DSM-IV diagnosis as a benchmark.
What the DSM says, how psychiatrists diagnose in the wild, and how psychiatrists diagnose in studies are three wildly different things. Practically unrelated.
It seems to privilege the hypothesis to use the factoid of non-standardized DSM use to dismiss a relevant point based on best available evidence. Does Douglas_Knight have reason to believe such possible caveats with DSM use renders the point moot, because I consider it non-obvious that such a factoid completely abolishes Roko’s argument?
It seems flawed to counter a specific finding with a fairly large effect with a general critique of the technique without evidence that this particular example is likely to be biased by it.
IOW, what would Dougles_Knight’s response be if his factoid is either wrong, non-applicable or irrelevant?
One thing I noticed on the AQ test is a number of questions which don’t clearly relate to any of the direct symptoms, but are chosen apparently because these things correlate with Asperger’s/Autism.
For instance, the statement “I find numbers fascinating”. This may well correlate with Autism, but I bet it correlates even more strongly with an interest in math or math-heavy sciences. That math olympians nearly all answered yes to this question, doesn’t really tell us anything new about the correlation between math and AQ. The fact that this question is scored positively for AQ has built the correlation assumption into the test.
There are some less obvious examples such as “I see patterns all the time”. I would wild-ass guess that at least 2-3 points of the gap between the math heavy groups’ scores and the population average scores are represented by answers to questions that are not related directly to symptoms, but are personality/brain traits correlated with symptoms, which also happen to be highly useful for doing math.
True, but the fact remains that 7⁄11 = 64% of the students who scored 32+ were diagnosed with AS by psychiatrists, presumably that vindicates the assumptions, to the extent that you trust the DSM-IV diagnosis as a benchmark.
What the DSM says, how psychiatrists diagnose in the wild, and how psychiatrists diagnose in studies are three wildly different things. Practically unrelated.
Leave a line of retreat.
Hullo?
Edit: I don’t see the relevance of “Leave a line of retreat” to Douglas_Knight’s comment—I would like an explanation.
Sorry, inferential distance.
It seems to privilege the hypothesis to use the factoid of non-standardized DSM use to dismiss a relevant point based on best available evidence. Does Douglas_Knight have reason to believe such possible caveats with DSM use renders the point moot, because I consider it non-obvious that such a factoid completely abolishes Roko’s argument?
It seems flawed to counter a specific finding with a fairly large effect with a general critique of the technique without evidence that this particular example is likely to be biased by it.
IOW, what would Dougles_Knight’s response be if his factoid is either wrong, non-applicable or irrelevant?
It’s a conversation-stopper when used like here.