@SamFellowesHPS I think from those advocating PDA as an ASD, are referring to the entire autistic population, which confusingly includes any non-autistic persons with PDA. So I think they view it a bit like this.
@SamFellowesHPS That PDA is dimensional, perpendicular to autism severity/ functioning (yes I know this is a false dichotomy & flawed conceptualisation of autism).
@SamFellowesHPS The reason being for this, is that they PDA to be autism as on a behavioural level, it has RRBIs & social communication issues. They ignore issue of non-autistic persons with PDA in research samples, presumably because they them as being autistic due to PDA.
@SamFellowesHPS I do not agree with that logic for many reasons.
Moving on there is some research indicating that PDA presents at consistent level across the autistic population, if you look at severity/ functioning.
@SamFellowesHPS We know that they know that PDA contains non-autism features like anxiety, and conduct problems etc etc. It is problematic just squeezing PDA between/ adjacent to LFA/ HFA based on severity. It seems to fit best perpendicular to severity/ functioning.
@SamFellowesHPS Can people note I have graded the colours for autism & PDA based on severity. I placed PDA below autism, due to non-autistic features & non-autistic persons with PDA.
@SamFellowesHPS It is not a perfect diagram. It is the best I can come up with short notice. I would welcome feedback on it.
@SamFellowesHPS I am referring to dimensionality in the entire human population. Which to me makes sense. The DSM-5 is clear that narrow categories do not align with how human presents. Most Disorders present as a spectrum. That human presentations are dynamic over time.
@SamFellowesHPS *presumably because they view PDA to be autism*
@SamFellowesHPS This is my issue with saying PDA is dimensional. One of the most replicated results is that PDA is seen in non-autistic persons. Many experts say PDA is seen in non-autistics. Many papers discuss how PDA features are seen outside of autism.
@SamFellowesHPS O'Nions in her PhD thesis acknowledges seeing mild PDA presentations. Gillberg predicts PDA is a common, new Disorder. Help4Psychology "Rational Demand Avoidance" (which I view to be PDA, due to many reasons).
@SamFellowesHPS Considering we know that all attempts to create stable autism subtypes have failed, with this other information. It just seems ludicrous to say PDA is "dimensional" to autistic persons, when ignoring it apparently is dimensional in entire human population.
@SamFellowesHPS Especially, when dx threshold for a generic Disorder is substantially lower than some have for PDA, it is around the "Rational Demand Avoidance" group/ EDA-Q threshold.
@SamFellowesHPS "the disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.“ (APA 2013, p21).
@SamFellowesHPS “…start to display avoidant behaviour and challenging behaviour in response to a particular stressor…” (Eaton 2018, p20).
Around EDA-Q threshold “problematic demand avoidance” (O’Nions et al 2018b)."
@SamFellowesHPS I am not really a fan of using a spectrum concept, we know from autism, it tends to be used as a one dimensional swingometer. I prefer a concept of a manifold, as advocated by Ian Hacking.
@SamFellowesHPS It is sometimes worthwhile to use accepted language on a concept like a spectrum. Although, as I said I think a manifold is better representation of human nature, which is probably why it works better for autism than spectrum (because we are fully human...).
@SamFellowesHPS Oh Sam, sometimes your comments make me gush in admiration. Nick Chown often elicits a similar response from me, & I am happy he has agreed to be a panel examiner on my first PhD deadline. I will do my best to respond to your comments.
@SamFellowesHPS Science tends to go through paradigm shifts, especially when something is severely critiqued at odds with predictions. Physics to some extent is evolving again due to recent research results.
@SamFellowesHPS One could argue our understanding of Disorders is due a major paradigm change. I think there is a credible case to stop using them.
Dimensional approach to PDA, & yet it is meant to be a rare ASD subtype. How exactly is taking a narrow definition of PDA (hence its rare ASD subtype), fits in with broader spectrum nature of disorders & how narrow categories do not reflect human nature?
Point is, how is adopting a narrow definition & approaching PDA as a rare ASD subtype; inline with current understandings of human nature, that disorders & most human characteristics are spectrum in nature & overlap each other? How exactly is it dimensional?
Or this another one these things, where a PDA is an ASD supporters are essentially trying to blag it & hope no-one actually checks it?
Saw this "Our society doesn't fear autism". I do not know where to start with how problematic & wrong this statement is.
No, I do not have the spoons to respond to this problematic statement today. It is an issue in wider context the statement was made.
Subtext of this is that society often does fear autism. It is an essential feature of commodifying autism, & creating a demand for interventions/ treatments to "cure"/ wipeout autism. @anneemcguire powerfully argues this in her "War On Autism" book.
PDA is meant to have coding deficits in social identity/ pride/ shame. I am unconvinced they are actually present, & that the proposed deficits cause social interaction issues in PDA.
Newson argued demand avoidance was obsessive in nature as persons know no boundaries, i.e., motivated to express avoidance of various demands because do not know any better.
This, exactly this, is an important reason why I am so annoyed with certain autism stakeholders advocating PDA is a form of autism. Most autistic persons do NOT want autism to be divided. Perhaps, other's can empathise my annoyance on the topic?
This is also one of the reasons why I am kind of unimpressed with Chloe Farahar platforming Harry Thompson on Aucademy. She expressed similar sentiments to me at the 2019 PARC conference & has spoken against dividing autism.
The literature tells us autism cannot be divided. Others, including @HappeLab have written about it (admittedly outside PDA literature for Happe).
@HiggsMandy@HappeLab I have written about it, inside and outside PDA literature, citing @HappeLab. I am unsure why she does not writen about it in PDA literature. Best guess, is that it undermines the case for PDA being autism?