You must log in or # to comment.
… did they adjust the data points to go from lowest to highest
…so the chart go up?
…
*I wrote down the data on a napkin and it makes more sense. These fuckers made a Bad Graph.
I guess we found the answer to “Is math invented or discovered?”
Bad Graph says: 0.75% of 8 year olds were diagnosed in 2000 versus 3.2% in 2020.
Correlation =/= causation.
How have the diagnostic criteria changed in 20 years? Autism was a stigma when I was in high school in 2000, now it’s a spectrum. Are there routine screenings at pediatricians now?
Number go up, but what else go up simultaneously?
I hate it here.
I tutored a young autistic man in college and he was almost non-verbal. He could communicate through speech, but only in monosyllables and with great difficulty and stuttering. That was the only definition of autism I understood at that time, and he was considered better off than many.
A few years later when I learned about Asperger’s because my sister got diagnosed with it, I went to get evaluated myself and after sitting down with me once, they said I’m not autistic.
I’m about 99% sure I would be placed on the autism spectrum today.
I don’t know whether it’s good or bad that the diagnostics / definition of autism seem to be broadening — that’s above my pay grade. But you can’t deny people who weren’t considered autistic 30 years ago are today, and so to compare autism rates which measure clearly different levels of capability is pretty useless.
In order to compare rates, we would need a consistent set of diagnostic criteria.
Same guys that tarrifed an island full of penguins?
Massaging your stats to make them say what you want is basic statistics 101.
Each bar shows two years; years they surveyed the kids and the year the kids were born.
So 2000|1992, is saying that kids born in 1992 were surveyed in 2000. If you look at tmit with thtmat perspective you can see it’s ordered by the year.
Can somebody smarter than me tell me what this is trying to say? There’s a bar for surveillance year and birth year. But, for instance, 2012 is on the graph twice with different values. What does it mean?
Edit:
I think I got it. The graph is of “Autism rates in 8 year olds over time”. And the X axis should just be year (in 2 year increments).
It’s no longer number go up good season.
Bad graph, they couldn’t decide if the X axis was the birth year of the kids or the year of the test but they give the same information since it’s always 8-year-old kids being tested. Anyways, they wrote the year of the test first and second the year of birth.
2012 appears once as a birth year and once as a surveillance year. The graph says that they only ever surveyed 8-year-olds, since the birth year is always 8 less than the surveillance year.
But they have 12 bars and 6 labels… it makes no sense
I see 6 labels.
I guess that means 2 surveys per year. But I’m just guessing.It’s probably a dataset that collected every 2 years, but only labeled every other bar to prevent the graph from being overcrowded.
Not a great decision, but not terrible.
Although, I’m a bit concerned for Lemmys graph comprehension skills.
Your right I can’t count i guess still makes no sense
They were told to make a graph that increases and that’s what they did.
In my country there has been a huge increase in both ADHD and autism diagnoses the last decades. At the same time in those years the methods to discover both diagnoses have improved greatly.
But you know, correlation does not equal causation…Mandating helmets for the boys at the front is resulting in many more head injuries!
Yeah, this is like saying “skin cancer rates have increased dramatically in the past 30 years!” Well yeah, because now we have the technology to detect it earlier. That “things increased” stat ignores the complementary “but deaths decreased dramatically” stat that immediately follows it. Before, we didn’t know people had skin cancer until it was killing them. But now, with preventative screenings, public awareness campaigns, etc, people are more likely to get checked before it is a life threatening issue.
It’s the same thing. Detection models got better, so detection rates went up.
30 years ago my teacher suspected i am on som sort of spectrum and had to get tested. I remember going to some doctor and i had to clap really fast and look into a light. Believe it of not i was not diagnosed with ADHD, because i’m a really good clapper
Damn! You should get vaccinated for whatever and try again. Better luck next time?
It looks nepotism put a failson in charge of this graph.
The axis makes sense with the label, they just didn’t label every data point.
HMMMMM
Most magats are autists but not all autists are magats?
It’s hard to speculate, but the cdc should take a look at this strong correlation!!
For some reason, that doesn’t look like a GPT-generated graph, which means… sadly… that someone had to make that thing… and somebody had to approve it.
What do you bet it’s not even based on real data and it’s just some random rectangles that they drew.
They also could have just grabbed any graph off of google images and relabeled it. That was a apparently a popular shortcut in corporations when someone had to present to their bosses.
I think the x axis is “year of measurement | year of birth” since they are 8 years apart. Very unconventional and it would need an explanation but it’s not bad to have both pieces of information handy in this context
Now show the testing rate over the same time period!
Anti-vaxxers: No.
That line of best fit doesn’t even match the data. How can it start above the data and then finish above the data but still be line of best fit. Not that that’s the only problem with this graph of course.
I think it’s just a trendline, not a line of best fit.
Sorry, it’s actually a “best fits our narrative” line. I can see how you might have been confused.
Guarantee you the people afraid of autism has no idea what it even is, other than “bad”
There’s a vast number of conservative parents who have said they would support abortion in cases of fetal abnormalities like “autism” because they’re not pro-life or informed about anything, they’re just scared. They’re scared of hardships, they’re scared of emotional labor, they’re scared of the social stigmas around having to care for someone with special needs, they’re scared they won’t love a child who isn’t normal, and will be judged for it.
It’s not possible to diagnose an autism until the age of about four or five at the earliest so I’m not sure how they’re planning to do that
They don’t think in logical, reasonable systems, they imagine stories. The entire conservative mindset is narratives and feelings. That’s why things like vaccines and tylenol go so hard for them, it’s an easy McGuffin to comprehend and work into their mental storylines.
Cool but
I remember when my mum was filling out a form as part of the autism assessment, she was like “sounds a lot like my husband as well… And his dad”
I’m convinced my mom is on the spectrum and my grandparents
- Autism is a spectrum., same as gender ideology. Whether you like it or not, it’s true.
- We’re better at diagnosis
- Preconceived notions about such things aren’t as prevalent, until recently for political reasons
They’re basically banking on people still thinking, autism is “intellectual disability, but quirkier and more difficult”, while I have met “more severe” cases who did not had the ID part, they just were lucky to avoid the diagnosis for long, and thus people didn’t pretend they’re “too dumb to even learn to count to 10”.
I’m a woman in my 40s who is probably autistic, but back then I was the wrong demographic and “too well behaved” to even consider diagnosis. I’m a typical example people think of when thinking about under diagnosis.
On the other hand, I work with people who have severe learning disabilities who also evaded diagnosis, or were diagnosed well into adulthood as diagnosis is difficult in someone so impaired. In another time, they would have been labelled with a grossly offensive term and just left. Better treatment of disabled people is probably another reason we see rising rates of diagnosis.
spectrum
Our species broadly doesn’t think in terms of spectrums or nuance.
I burned years of my life trying to make arguments from reason and explain how there can be simultaneous truths or that issues are not black-and-white. It has NEVER stuck, not with friends, not with family, not with strangers on the internet.
People’s minds largely do not work that way. We all HAVE to digest this and mourn it and let it pass through us so we can stop trying to argue with these blockheads in ways they can’t even grasp. We can change them if we tell them stories about feelings, if we make them feel validated or heard, we can change them with careful, patient one-on-one care like a parent telling a child bedtime stories… but this takes a level of energy, empathy and patience that few of us have. Some do, I give massive respect to those who have dedicated their lives to this kind of outreach. I wish we had more.
This is precisely what ‘leader scientists’ did when folks in power plopped them before crowds and radio and TV and such for a long time.
…It kinda worked.
But we’re in the algorithmic attention era now. We are past that era.
In other news, visibility bias has been classified as communist propaganda. Anyone who says this isn’t representative of an actual increase in the incidence rate is a communist and can safely be ignored.
