In article <2vansh$7ns at threed.uchc.edu>,
Andres Sinisterra <asiniste at neuron.uchc.edu> wrote:
>I posted a query a while back regarding autism research. I guess that this
>topic is not of much interest to researchers. It is probably due to the
>fact that it is still seen as a *MENTAL* disorder rather than a
>bioneurologigal disorder by many researchers. The difference between
>ignorance and inteligence seems to be the specific paradigm we are trained
>to believe in.
You already seem to have some well-defined ideas of how "researchers"
approach autism, but simply because you did not get much of a response to
your original post does NOT mean that autism is regarded as a "mental"
disease by the people who read and respond to this newsgroup. (I did not
read your original post, but if it was anything like this one in tone or
intent, I am not surprised that few people responded to it. Autism, as
I'm sure you well know, is a difficult issue which has not shown any
consistent neurological symptoms. Although many researchers and
clinicians are looking for physiological evidence related to autism, a
distinct lack of such evidence makes it difficult to talk about autism as
a purely neurophysiological phenomenon. This does not mean that autism
is soley a "mental" disorder - you are vague about what exactly you mean
by mental, and I am also unsure of why you are hostile about this
approach to studying autism. The study of the causes of atuism has come
along way from blaming the mother for her child's affective
"insufficiencies", and I look forward to what both cognitive,
neurological, and genetic research can *collectively* contribute to our
understanding of autism.
I hope you can find answers to your original question posted here, but
berating the people who read this newsgroup does not seem an appropriate
cnash at Reed.edu