Submitted 8 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/4111873c-bd8f-4a9c-9a41-81bbfca42f45.png
That’s like saying we have more cancer now than in the past.
Sure, that might be true in certain scenarios (we’re very good at creating new ways to give ourselves cancer).
The truth is that we’re living longer, increasing the risk and likelihood of cancer, and we’ve gotten a LOT better at finding and diagnosing cancer and specific types.
Please tell me this is fake
Also remember that we only had diagnostic tools for adult autism beginning in the 1980s.
The rise of autism diagnosis does not necessarily equal a rise in autism.
That’s definitely something an autist would say!!! We found them, boys!!!
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
In hypernormalization, making SURE you know they ARE LYING and that IT DOESN’T MATTER is essential.
Because the goal is to make you believe you can’t do anything, so that you give up and demobilize that is their goal.
Very well said. I will make a concerted effort to inject “hypernormalization” into my speech more often going forward. For decades I’ve been saying to friends that the reductionist obsession with “normal” (whatever the hell that means) is a cancer to modern society.
In particular it already sounds creepy when you replace usage with its verb-form, e.g. changing “all my friends are normal” to “all my friends have been normalized”. It’s common practise to use a re-encoder to normalize a “background” playlist of songs to the same dB threshold so no single song sticks out and distracts us from what we are trying to focus on while listening. Similarly, authorities of an authoritarian ilk try to normalize populations so none of them stick out and distract from the primary focus (centralization of power and money). Hypernormalization involves taking that to its logical conclusion, telling the vast majority of people “stay in your lane” - meaning “shut up and consume, and when we tell you what to buy you buy it”, AKA be “normal(ized)”).
Before you get more downvotes, it’s a reference folks: …wikipedia.org/…/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistic…
I believe the data through 2016, but the last 3 bars are faked. The increase per bin is 5 higher than the previous.
It might be because DSM-V was released in 2013.
When people say autism they think of the nonverbal kind not the model train kind.
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!!
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
Military spending also increased from 2000-2022, ergo military spending causes autism.
Just as the mocroplastics are getting into everything!
A nice dose of synthetic hormones!
Yeah Autism rates are going up in all groups because people are getting diagnoses. This is partly about better awareness but also partly about money - there is an incentive to expand the diagnosis, diagnose more people and treat more people, which somewhat muddies the water. Autistic Spectrum Disorder first appeared in the American DSM in 2012, unifying 5 existing conditions into one, and then it moved into the international ICD in 2018 (going live in 2022). It is no wonder awareness has gone up, and infrastructure for diagnosis has rolled out.
We’re not seeing an increase in Autism, we’re seeing an increase in the diagnosis of autism. This graph just shows how stupid and dumbed down the CDC and the White House is under this cretinous president.
we’re seeing an increase in the diagnosis of autism.
Absolutely.
We’re not seeing an increase in Autism
Not sure about that. It can be both.
Sure, it’s possible, but I’m not sure there’s data to support the idea of increasing rates of autism. The increase in diagnosis rates is way too strong of a confounder
It’s probably more than just better diagnosis.
“Advanced Parental Age” has a significant body of work behind it, and people are having kids quite a bit older than they used to, because… you know… gestures broadly at how fucked up the world is
My daughter’s autistic and we were 39 (wife) and 42 (me) when we had her. OTOH, we were two years older and my son isn’t autistic.
There is an 𝑥 axis and it’s not too hard to comprehend, although I’d prefer the dividing character to be newline rather than “|”, or only show the latter date.
I honestly don’t know why they even list the birth year. It explicitly states “8 Year Olds”, we can do the math.
The years are either out of order or overlapping.
But they aren’t from what I can see. They’re surveillance/birth year pairs in ascending order.
No, it’s “surveillance year | birth year” and only every other value is listed. It would be nicer with a numerical value but it’s fine.
Now show the testing rate over the same time period!
Anti-vaxxers: No.
r/DataIsBlursed
Absolute nonsense graph. Buckle up, this shit is going to get way worse.
Number of unvaxxed kids also growing in the past 22 years. I think it proves that autism is caused by lack of vaccine.
… did they adjust the data points to go from lowest to highest
…so the chart go up?
…
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.
Massaging your stats to make them say what you want is basic statistics 101.
I guess we found the answer to “Is math invented or discovered?”
Same guys that taxed an island full of penguins?
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.
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?
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.
They were told to make a graph that increases and that’s what they did.
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 7 labels… it makes no sense
It’s no longer number go up good season.
The source is “I made it the fuck up!”
Also ignoring improvements in diagnostics.
I mean, it says the source right there, it’s the CDC…
Yeah, after deleting any data the CDC used to have that they didn’t agree with. And making up any new data they need to make their preconceived notion as perceivably supported as possible.
Yes, which happened to be the body that made it the fuck up.
The organization run by a brain worm driving a human suit?
thejml@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
“8 year olds, dude.” - Walter Sobchak
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 8 months ago
You said it, maing.