Could TV be responsible for the sharp increase of autism in kids?

[PeterFries]

...

[Ishtar]

As somebody who has Autism, I'm not sure about that. People with Autism or Aspergers are born with it, so it could just be a coincidence. It makes sense if people with Autism watch a lot of TV due to the fact that they don't really mingle to much.

[Noukon]

As somebody who has Autism, I'm not sure about that. People with Autism or Aspergers are born with it, so it could just be a coincidence. It makes sense if people with Autism watch a lot of TV due to the fact that they don't really mingle to much.

The actual cause of autism/Asperger's is not known; there's a lot of evidence that it may be conditional from birth, but this study could easily punch a hole right through that.

Frankly, though, television obviously can't be the only cause or contributor. I myself have a very mild case of Asperger's, and I barely watched television until long after it manifested itself.

[James]

There is a further question of recognized cases of autism and increased awareness bringing the issue into light. I would have thought these would have been major factors in any statistical increase. I'd have further considered that with TV being quite a quite logical attraction for many autistic people (given the nature of autism) and that the relationship between TV and autism would be a natural one. I can't see it as a contributing factor to the disorder.

[Baltofan]

I have autism, and I'm not sure either.

[eJm]

I'm Autistic and have been since I was diagnosed at 5 years old.

I cannot help think this is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. I also cannot help but think it's one of the most easy to see coincidences. What should be done is for these people to check medical logs to see if those children were given the MMR vaccine (or whatever Americans have) because from experience, it is one of the biggest causes of Autism that noone has even noticed yet. And even when it does happen, people just put it under the carpet.

Really, do they just get paid to write stupid junk?

[James]

The authors of the paper aren't talking about a correlation between TV watching and kids who have autism, they're talking about early childhood TV viewing as a trigger (not a cause, either) for autism, claiming statistical evidence that seemed to them to indicate that heavy TV viewing lines up with rates of autism diagnosis.


I'm not seeing a real difference in what I said Peter (if you were referring to me). I'm saying that I can see why TV would bring kids with autistic behaviour to the set (and that would seem an argument as to how the figures would align) rather than it being a trigger in itself; that the focus of the report could detects a statistical cataylst that doesn't necessarily prove the summary but could imply a number of conclusions.

[Harukuro]

I've got Asperger's and I'm not sure if this counts for everyone with autisim or Asperger's. I spend most of my time on the computer then the TV anyway. But it could be different for everyone.

[Antiyonder]

BTW, it's kind of interesting that so many posters here are autistic, isn't it?

I too am autistic. As for your comment, I suppose because on toonzone we're judged by our behavior rather than on perfection.

[The Weed Of Cri]

More over-simplified number crunching, documenting correlation without any visible causation. Without causation, the figures are essentially meaningless, like connecting women's hemlines to the national economy (they actually did that once, and people believed it). The truth is: no definitive cause or sequence of events has been proven to cause autism, despite the fact that personal injury lawyers are extorting hundreds of millions of dollars from insurance companies by trying to blame it on doctor incompetence, medical misadventue, etc. (Thank you, Ralph Nader, you spawn of Hell, for popularizing the post hoc ergo propter hoc class of lawsuit). Blaming it on TV just provides the ambulance chasers with another group of deep pockets (the entertainment industry) to poke their sticky fingers into.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I wonder if people are throwing the term "autism" around as a catch-all for all slightly "odd" behaviours, instead of applying it more correctly. It's like ADD. ADD this, ADD that...technically the whole world is getting ADD since nobody can pay attention to any TV show or movie that doesn't make a cut every 10 seconds anymore!

[Roman Legion]

Keep in mind that while the media may eventually overhype this news, all the paper really says is that they've discovered a definite... maybe. They're quite careful, as they should be, to maintain that they haven't proven anything.


More over-simplified number crunching, documenting correlation without any visible causation...Over-simplified? I wish more research papers I've read were this complete or at least as detailed in both equations and explanations. There's actually enough to, y'know, base further research on or shoot down the theory entirely.


Without causation, the figures are essentially meaningless, like connecting women's hemlines to the national economy (they actually did that once, and people believed it).Causation isn't easy to prove. Proving causation in complex systems is especially difficult. It's unlikely that there is a single definitive cause for all autism; this paper doesn't pretend that TV is any such thing. Whatever multiple causes of autism there may be, none will be found without preliminary research like this. If you keep eliminating possible causes, the remaining possibilities narrow slightly. It's a plausible theory waiting to be shot down, so what more do you want?


The truth is: no definitive cause or sequence of events has been proven to cause autism...The study didn't claim anything to the contrary.


(Thank you, Ralph Nader, you spawn of Hell, for popularizing the post hoc ergo propter hoc class of lawsuit). Blaming it on TV just provides the ambulance chasers with another group of deep pockets (the entertainment industry) to poke their sticky fingers into.Did you even read the paper?

Personally, I didn't think it was a bright idea to plop down children under 3 in front of the TV, anyway, but that's just my old-fashioned common sense speaking. :p

--Romey

[The Myst]

Vaccinations.

[HG Revolution]

Yet another Aspergers-diagnosed member here, and I'd say I don't really give a crap about what causes autism. If we could just get better help, what causes the stuff shouldn't even matter.

[The Myst]

I wonder if people are throwing the term "autism" around as a catch-all for all slightly "odd" behaviours, instead of applying it more correctly. It's like ADD. ADD this, ADD that...technically the whole world is getting ADD since nobody can pay attention to any TV show or movie that doesn't make a cut every 10 seconds anymore!

This is how I feel. I have eccentric behaviors that could be considered an aspect of autism or aspergers but I don't identify myself with it because it's ridiculous to write off all eccentric behavior as a mental disorder like all these hack psychiatrists are doing these days.

I mean, I've read that a symptom of it is having fanatical devotion to something. Jesus Christ, maybe it just interests them, it doesn't have to be a mental disorder.

Psychiatrists are generally idiots and I don't think quite as many people have autism or aspergers or ADD as they say.

[The Weed Of Cri]

Keep in mind that while the media may eventually overhype this news, all the paper really says is that they've discovered a definite... maybe.

That's usually all it takes to get the lawsuits started. No actual verifiable harm to a single human being had ever been proven in the case of Anderson vs. Pacific Gas And Electric (the case made famous in movie Erin Brockovich), and that led to a $333,000,000 payout. That's neither fair nor just. DDT, alar, Red Dye No.2, Norplant, the Dalkon Shield, child-safety seats for cars, airbags, oxycontin, and a half-dozen different kinds of artificial sweetner have been pulled off the market without any proven justification purely on lawsuits or the threat of one.


Over-simplified? I wish more research papers I've read were this complete or at least as detailed in both equations and explanations.

The trouble is, this paper isn't really research, it's statistical analysis. It's bloated with blanket definitions and vague phrasing that obscure its possible intent. One example: In the Introduction, they state that the number of people who were diagnosed with autism had increased from 1 in 2500 thirty years ago to 1 in 166 today without mentioning that the part of the reason for this increase is because the definition of what constituted autism has changed over the last thirty years. This is a shockingly clumsy omission of a significant fact that impacts the entire premise of the paper. Much of what is now considered autism was once classified as "acting up", "short attention span", "having one's head in the clouds", etc. Under the current definition of the word, Albert Einstein was autistic because he did not learn to speak until he was three years old.


Causation isn't easy to prove. Proving causation in complex systems is especially difficult. It's unlikely that there is a single definitive cause for all autism; this paper doesn't pretend that TV is any such thing. Whatever multiple causes of autism there may be, none will be found without preliminary research like this. If you keep eliminating possible causes, the remaining possibilities narrow slightly. It's a plausible theory waiting to be shot down, so what more do you want?

Causation, while not easy to prove, is very easy to assume, especially by people who lack the training, education and critical thinking skills to competently evaluate it (like trial juries, the press, etc.). Eliminating possible causes that lack any significant empirical data to support them is part of the scientific process. But there is a huge gap between "possible", and "verifiable", and too much press coverage of the former at the expense of the latter is socially irresponsible, which is what angered me in my previous post.


Did you even read the paper?

Yes, I did, and I did so from the perspective of someone who has more than a layman knowledge of bio-research (I have a Bachelor's Degree in Biology), and this paper contains some very bad science. (The implication alone, that Amish people may be less prone to autism because they don't watch television, violates three or four of the basic precepts of scientific methodology. Their speculation of the existance of a TV-based "trigger" for autism violtates several more.) I suspect it was leaked to the press before it was peer-reviewed, so any criticisms of it would be water under the bridge.


This is how I feel. I have eccentric behaviors that could be considered an aspect of autism or aspergers but I don't identify myself with it because it's ridiculous to write off all eccentric behavior as a mental disorder like all these hack psychiatrists are doing these days.

That's a healthy attitude, and one that more health-care professionals should adopt. There is some very real evidence that things like autism and ADHD (a "condition" that has no known cause, no definitive diagnostic procedure for identifing it, no standardized therapy for treating its symptoms, and has never even been conclusively defined) may be over-diagnosed by doctors and psychiatrists. That is not to say that these things don't exist; they just may not be as prevalent as some people think.

[Roman Legion]

That's usually all it takes to get the lawsuits started.Anything can lead to a lawsuit. If we let fear of litigation drive everything, we might as well just give up on medical research right now.


The trouble is, this paper isn't really research, it's statistical analysis.See, I never thought it to be the kind of research you seem to think it's pretending to be.


In the Introduction, they state that the number of people who were diagnosed with autism had increased from 1 in 2500 thirty years ago to 1 in 166 today without mentioning that the part of the reason for this increase is because the definition of what constituted autism has changed over the last thirty years. This is a shockingly clumsy omission...Are we reading two different papers? I thought I read that they acknowledged and attempted to account for that.


Causation, while not easy to prove, is very easy to assume, especially by people who lack the training, education and critical thinking skills ...I'm not denying that other people may very well take this for more than it is. People do that. The paper still isn't claiming or even implying causation. It's noting some statistically interesting correlations, trying to account for the most obvious possible criticisms, and calling for some actual research (the kind you're thinking of) to be done. That's about it.


The implication alone, that Amish people may be less prone to autism because they don't watch television, violates three or four of the basic precepts of scientific methodology.Maybe you've misjudged the intent of the paper. They weren't implying anything of the sort. They were noting that their speculation is consistent with previous observations made of the Amish. They go so far to note that the "investigation" of Amish autism was merely informal. They even list other possible explanations for the data.


Their speculation of the existance of a TV-based "trigger" for autism violtates several more.Which parts of the scientific method limit what can and cannot be speculated? All I seem to recall is how to approach things after a hypothesis has been brought up...

EDIT: Consider the "research" that had been done to find correlations between dental health and heart disease. If we'd been arguing that topic a few years ago, your equivalent position would have been to dismiss such papers as merely statistical analysis. Certainly, it was criticised. Nothing had been proven, but that wasn't the point -- it was a big arrow for future research to follow. Recently, live oral bacteria were actually recovered and grown in culture from arterial plaque samples. It's still too soon to claim that poor dental health is a cause of, say, heart attacks, but we're that much closer to knowing thanks to papers noting significant correlations.

--Romey

[The Weed Of Cri]

Are we reading two different papers? I thought I read that they acknowledged and attempted to account for that.

Not quite. They acknowledge that part of the difference was due to the under-reporting of autism cases decades ago (a valid point), but that's not the same thing as acknowledging the more expansive definition of autism that is used today. Paradoxically, they don't seriously consider the possibility that the lower recorded rates of autism among the Amish may also be the result of underreporting. After all, why would people from a culture dedicated to shunning modern technology and contrivances not rush their kids off to a psychiatrist for a Ritalin fix at the first sign of confusing behavior....


Which parts of the scientific method limit what can and cannot be speculated? All I seem to recall is how to approach things after a hypothesis has been brought up...

The part that states that a valid hypothesis must be based on known fact without extrapolating into the unknown.
The part that states that a hypothesis, in order to be considered valid, must be in the form a falsifiable premise.
The part that states that all data are significant, and that variable factors that may have an inpact on proving or falsifying the hypothesis must either be incorporated into the hypothesis or demonstrated empircally that their impact is negligable.

[Roman Legion]

They acknowledge that part of the difference was due to the under-reporting of autism cases decades ago (a valid point), but that's not the same thing as acknowledging the more expansive definition of autism that is used today.I remember reading in the notes that they were basing more recent figures on a narrower definition of autism to account for that as well, despite the fact that they cited the 1 out of 166 figure in the introduction.


Paradoxically, they don't seriously consider the possibility that the lower recorded rates of autism among the Amish may also be the result of underreporting.Like I said, they weren't claiming this to be strong evidence or anything of the sort. Without more information, this is a current hole in the theory. They didn't state the possibility of lower recording rates explicitly, but I thought it was generally implied by: "...possibly a more thorough investigation would turn up the expected hundreds of autistic Amish." If the Amish were proven to have the same rate of autism as anyone else, that'd blow a gaping hole in a lot of autism trigger theories... which I think we'd both agree to be ultimately helpful.


The part that states that a valid hypothesis must be based on known fact without extrapolating into the unknown.Which aspects are extrapolating into the unknown? They're missing a couple absolute known facts, in the case of the Amish, but such facts aren't impossible to obtain, and aren't likely to be obtained without some outside pressure. They're certainly working from available data, not glossing over the fact that some things need further verification.


The part that states that a hypothesis, in order to be considered valid, must be in the form a falsifiable premise.Which part of the premise isn't falsifiable?


The part that states that all data are significant, and that variable factors that may have an inpact on proving or falsifying the hypothesis must either be incorporated into the hypothesis or demonstrated empircally that their impact is negligable.If you've identified any such issues, would you care to point them out? I'm not quite prepared at this point to reread the whole thing a third time. =x

Hopefully you'll also get back to me on the dental health / heart disease issue...

--Romey

[Carolina Red]

Maybe it is a genetic thing, I would not know. I obviously am no expert on this stuff, but I do know that the definition of what is autism has expanded over the years.

Frankly I find it hard to believe that this would be the case. I have read that it is not a good idea for children under the age of two to watch television despite those genius baby videos and baby television channels that have become so popular in the last year. (i bet kids that age aren't fully conscious enough to understand what is going on with the programs) And considering that it wouldn't be a good idea to leave a child alone for long periods of time at that age the parent or guardian would be able to control the television viewing habits the child has.

You've got to remember that only a few states were used in this study. You can't always assume that a study will be totally accurate because the sample sizes are not all inclusive.

Maybe someday a more intensive study will help get us some more answers. But if there is concrete proof that comes up in the future then this will impact the television industry more than the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show has.


If the Amish were proven to have the same rate of autism as anyone else, that'd blow a gaping hole in a lot of autism trigger theories... which I think we'd both agree to be ultimately helpful. If you're talking genetics then it may give us a good idea about trends. They say it occurs in males more often but there will probably be genetic/background theories flying around well into the future.

[Roman Legion]

Maybe it is a genetic thing...It very likely is a genetic thing, but genes are often only part of the story. For example, having some genes may significantly increase your risk (say, double) of a certain disorder, but it's not guaranteed. More complex gene or environmental interactions may be involved as well.


You've got to remember that only a few states were used in this study. You can't always assume that a study will be totally accurate because the sample sizes are not all inclusive.Using only a few states doesn't necessarily mean a small sample size, though. Only certain states had the required data. All-inclusive samples are actually, believe it or not, often undesirable or completely useless. Couter-intuitive as it may sound, some data cleaning may even be necessary to avoid bias.


But if there is concrete proof that comes up in the future then this will impact the television industry more than the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show has.I'm not really sure there would be much of an impact. Programs that target 2 to 11 year olds may lose the bottom rung of their viewers, but that's about it. There might be a temporary effect should some parents panic and overreact, but they'll likely become complacent again. TV is too easy a babysitter, at any age...

--Romey