I don't understand why you or the person I'm replying to are for some reason seeming to dispute the higher rate of autism diagnosis? It's a fairly well-established fact, the point of contention is why the rate is higher.

In this case no. It's the fact that we're better at diagnosing things, any disease that doesn't have active treatments is going to be similar.

You could do reports of ED over time and that graph is going to skyrocket not because it's more or less common but rather more people are willing to get diagnosed to seek remediation. Right around the discovery of Viagra and it's ilk you'd see skyrocketing ED diagnoses and it's not like dicks just suddenly stopped working.

https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/autism-australia-2022

The authorities want an homogeneous population, as they also have a limited ability to imagine the social sphere in multiple dimensions, this is why you're seeing things like the gender binaries. At least that's just two simulations to run. But gender as spectrum, this becomes quickly untenable for the elites to model for control, they wish the squash the real world complexity into flattened binaries or even uniformity.

Yes, I think you got it exactly right and the audio normalization analogy is correct, at least for sound nerds like us.

Hypernormalization is a dysfunctional response from elites due to their human cognitive weakness. This is why we're not going back to "King" no single human can bear the complexity of the entire world in their skull mush. They will melt down and genocide the Kurds when it gets too hard for them to conjugate everything. This is why dictators and fascism will do a lot of damage, but have no hope whatsoever for success. They are "rebellion from cognitive weakness", they violently lash out at complexity itself, at those things they cannot understand. They want to reduce everything to a simple narrative of us versus them and then destroy "them" so only a uniform homogeneous "us" remains. This "us" identical to the ruler, does not require the ruler to imagine "the other" instead they only rule as if everyone else was an identical copy of them. And if anyone disagrees with that, they are "other".

From that we know the "few" cannot rule the many, but then how do we avoid the traps of design by committee, bikeshedding and the various paralysis that come from complexity beyond human cognition. Concentrations of power are too dumb to rule, but the mob and the market are also dumb and easily fooled, not to mention irresponsible and self-destructive. (The market is burning the planet, right now, it cannot see into the future). The mob is emotional and easily manipulated, often by its own emotions.

I think we need new modes of thinking more advanced than what we had in the 1700s. Something invented with at least the idea of what a computer could do.

You'll probably want to watch the best documentary on the subject

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr7T07WfIhM

I also recommend the following by the same author

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
about advertising and consumerism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6EBpLfLHCA&list=PLC4E798CAE3E10597
about how our own surplus value is used against us

I see 6 labels. I guess that means 2 surveys per year. But I’m just guessing.

Fair point, sorry. My statement about not torturing children still stands.

I'm not saying the graph is the best graph ever, I'm saying it's far from the worst I've seen.

Its also clearly not a line of best fit, as it isn't trying to "fit" the data. It's a trend line that's a vertically offset line from lowest to highest. It's a stupid line, but being used to convey how much growth their has been.

The only real issue with this graph is the information/context being ommited. We know there is a lot more to the autism debate beyond just the rate of diagnosis.

I think there's actually not 2 bars per year, but instead:

• the first red bar = the year 2000
• the second bar (which is not paired with another bar, and also, is not labelled at all) = the year 2002
• the third bar = the year 2004
• the fourth bar = the year 2006
• and so on until the final bar, the twelfth one, = the year 2022

The x axis increases by 2 years each entry.

The number after the "|" is only meant to "helpfully" (and confusingly) tell you when those children were born. To take your example:

• the data for the year 2000 is represented by the first red bar (7 per 1000 eight year olds had autism in 2000) and is labelled as 2000 | 1992 because those kids were born in 1992.
• the data for the year 2008 is represented by the fifth red bar (11 per 1000 eight year olds had autism in 2008) and is labelled as 2008 | 2000 because those kids were born in 2000.

Statistical distributions suck, especially when we want a clear-cut cause-and-effect silver bullet. My only sister has two autistic sons, and my wife and I were 7 years older than she was when we had our son and he isn't autistic (as far as we can tell thus far).

As a brother and uncle, I have incredible empathy for the desire and frustration to just get a clear answer on this. And I recognize these feeling however intense are orders of magnitude less than for a parent. It's not like lead or asbestos or thaledimide or radiation.

Best we've got is a confluence of factors, not the least being family history knowing full well how bad diagnosis has been historically.

It's so incredibly predatory to dump the science in the trash and just say "it was Tylenol all along".