Estou aqui.
An honest view of yourself isn't exactly a diagnosis. Far too many people have self-diagnosed themselves with asperger's or autism and started to think themselves as such because they wanted a place where they could fit and not all of those people were right about their condition. So unless there was a proper diagnosis, I won't count them. But the wider class is the majority of the people who don't have autism or some form of it. They obviously don't represent the whole group as well but they can't be ignored. You say that autism may be a factor in having OS yet you ignore that 76% of the people in that case study were never diagnosed with it. They were mentioned as examples. The first to show how two elements in statistics are questionably linked. The other is to show how even though a percentage of something is small, if the number was relatively huge to begin with then chances are that the number will still be big. I don't think you understand that even though it's a small percentage, the general population is so huge that even a small percentage of it will still be big. Do you think 47,390,000 is a small number by any chance? The inverse of what I just said applies as well. And actually it's more like 24% of the people in that case study have autism or some form of it. Would this be considered huge as well? Nice to see that you see that we agre- Fack! That obviously wasn't my intention. The intention was to show how in the end that the "BIG" percentage that you've been flaunting about is actually quite small in the face of the amount of people who might have autism. Like Makaze mentioned, how reliable are your statistics with such a small group of people? If I were to scale up your statistics, then the conclusion that we would've reached is that some people with OS also have autism...but then again, a lot more people with OS don't have autism so I see no correlation between autism and OS. Ignoring social norms doesn't exactly mean you have autism and in the end, we decide what we want to do with ourselves in society. Capiche?
Your princess is in another castle.
It probably is. I still need to read it. Any good?
You guys took too long B|
Who doesn't like yuri?
I wonder if this means something...
SOWWY ; ~ ; Don't hurt me ._. I just lost focus and got distracted by other things. But that is no excuse. I will get to writing...lat*shot...
But Pikachu is the Mouse Pokemon B| I'm in the same position as Noroz. While taxidermy has always been somewhat unnerving to me, I find this to be a little funny. Maybe my sense of humor is that fucked up >>.
Name: Phantasmagoric (Guardian Soul; GS) Favourites: Homestuck(Dave Strider, Terezi Pyrope, Doc. Scratch), Bakemonogatari, Steins;Gate, Durarara(Ryuugamine Mikado) Puella Magi Madoka Magica(Akemi Homura), Fate/Stay Night(Saber), Touhou(ALL OF IT!), Persona 3 and 4, To Aru Majutsu no Index, When They Cry, and Tales of the Abyss. I might add more...
I shaved yesterday and I already took a before pic. Now I just need to wait 29 days for the after pic.
I tend to get heated in a debate so my apologies for coming off as rude. And I personally hate when people use statistics to decieve people from the truth. It's a pet peeve to say the least B| First of all, you make it sounds like autism is something extremely rare just like object sexuality when it isn't. While .667% of the general population might sound small, you got to remember that the world's population just went over 7 billion. .667% of 7 billion is 47,390,000 which is small compared to 7 billion but is still a big number regardless. Now 9 out of those 47.39 million autistic people are also objectophiles. That is roughly 1,9x10^-7 or .000000019%. Now that is a small number and why I believe that autism isn't linked to object sexuality. I also looked over the case study just to be certain and only 5 people were diagnosed with autism or asperger's syndrome. 4 more only identifed themselves as such but were never diagnosed.
1 out of every 150 people may have autism but that doesn't mean that they're all in the same place in the autism scale. Nonetheless your logic is flawed because your use of statistics implies a causal link between two elements when they are not linked or the link is questionable at best. You also assume that a subset of specific members of a wider class is the wider class. For example, birth rates per head of population are higher in areas where there are more storks — because birth rates are always higher in rural areas, which is where one finds the stork. Is the stork connected to higher birth rates or is it merely a coincidence? Also be aware of the Law of Very Large Numbers. Any fraction of a very large number is likely to be a large number, no matter how small the fraction is. It is estimated that 2,135,000 Americans have used cocaine (including crack) in the past month. But that's only 0.7% of the population! So, is this a lot of people, or not? 0.667% of the general population(which just hit 7 billion recently) may have autism. And almost 50% of the people in a case study about object sexuality have autism. But what link do these two statistics have to each other? Show me what connection these two statistics have because I'm honestly not seeing it. Enlighten me with your wisdom. Why are you ignoring the other part of the data that you highlighted yourself? The rest of the group didn't have autism. So linking object sexuality to autism is null since all of them would need to have autism for there to be such a link. Plus there are other case studies about object sexuality with subjects that didn't have autism. Are you ignoring these as well? Sure they weren't as formal as the main one but is that reason enough to ignore them completely?
What the hell is wrong with you?
