My understanding pretty much matched what you wrote, with a slight difference between the 80%-1% divide. I think the 80% fidgure comes in large part from using the diagnosis criteria poorly, mixed with hyperbole. If you use the criteria as it was meant be used, I don't think you would get anything close to 80%, probably not 2%.
%
I know you might not be within reach of being informed here, but you're still not understanding the statement. The 80% illusratiton was purely conjectural, not meant to say anything about any specific pathology by the writer. And sure they were using some hyperbole in saying that the current criteria could be abused to an extent clearly beyong any appropriate kind of medical/psychiatric reason. The meaning was addressing the need for the new effort to produce some better criteria, and were clearly not meant to undermine the reality of the suffering or need for care for those who are needing it the most. It was an argument that we should not waste our resources on the marginal cases and focus on the central ones.
I suppose some onlookers at our discussion would find at least some of the criteria of autism evident in our squabble, being that neither of us seems to learn much from the effort, and obviously lack some common relationship skills.
So show them they aren't just right to be worried.
I suppose some onlookers at our discussion would find at least some of the criteria of autism evident in our squabble, being that neither of us seems to learn much from the effort, and obviously lack some common relationship skills.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.