Comments on: Mouth or Eyes: How do you look at someone’s face?

By: A Method to Predict the “Severity” of Autism?

A Method to Predict the “Severity” of Autism? — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:29:42 +0000

[...] have also found that the parents of autistic children tend to evaluate facial expressions in ways similar to autistic individ…, and am now watching to see what Charlie’s eyes are drawn to. Tags: asd, asperger, autism, [...]

By: Patience

Patience — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:34:44 +0000

I can’t handle eyes, unless they are of someone I am very close to (this limits me to my girlfriend, two best friends, and parents). I find the experience too intimate-feeling, and very intense. Photos of eyes don’t do it to me (I have a mild heterochromia and enjoy learning about it, which involves a lot of photos of eyes), but being in person and having to maintain eye contact is difficult. I tend to look at one eye alone, or ears, or mouths. Hands, too, sometimes.

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:14:48 +0000

And now the whole study has been turned into Parents of Autistic Children Are Often Aloof Themselves—-and that word keeps reappearing.

@Tony Bateson, while the comment thread wandered into issues besides the study, there are plenty of other posts here on which to discuss vaccines. Very best.

By: Tony Bateson

Tony Bateson — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:54:39 +0000

MY further comments seemed to have got lost in the fog of words. I say again there are no unvaccinated autistic kids. Please tell me if you know of any we can invite their parents input into this debate. But don’t tell me about Madsen nonsense. Madsen herself is related to an established figure in vaccination and the Danish Institute involved in this research makes and sells vaccines for export, at that time 80% of its profits coming from DTP type vaccines, please.

Just speak to me if you are a parent with an unvaccinated autistic child or get someone else to speak to me if you wish to remain anonymous.

Tony Bateson

By: Emily

Emily — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:49:54 +0000

RAJ, once again, your point seems to be in a different country from my point. All I can say to what you’ve posted is (1) Duh, and (2) nothing I said would be counter to that.

By: RAJ

RAJ — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:33:12 +0000

“Environmental relevance is determined by what exposures levels and exposure routes are. There’s no point in widespread testing of the effects of living immersed in seawater 24-7 if no one actually does that. But using actually occuring exposures and exposure routes would be relevant”.

Not necessarily. Genetic susceptabilty plays an important role in gene-environment interactions that result in increased susceptabilty or resistance to disease after an exposure.

Microdeletions in the gene CCL31 have been found to increase susceptability to HIV after an exposure.

http://www.phgfoundation.org/news/861/

There is no sharp line where all individuals exposed to an equivelant amount of an environmental pthogen will all be effected or where no one will be effected..

By: Owl

Owl — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:00:12 +0000

I honestly have trouble looking at both eyes on a face I’m not very familiar with at the same time. I’ll focus on one eye or the other, or the mouth or somewhere else. But trying to watch an entire face at once throws me quite a lot. I think the most common incident where I use eyes for non verbal communication is that silent pact between the distracted driver and the invisible bicyclist that the cyclist won’t be killed while crossing the street. Such agreements are so unstable that only the sacred pact of eye contact can ensure fulfillment.

Otherwise I tend to avoid eye contact altogether, especially with people I haven’t met before.

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:18:43 +0000

ok. if you get amanda peet and jenny mccarthy in the same room to talk about the V-word, will they look at each others' mouths or eyes.

By: Emily

Emily — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:43:46 +0000

pD, I believe you, and I’m sorry if that comes across as rude. It’s just not the best interface for “teaching,” you know?

By: passionlessDrone

passionlessDrone — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:37:20 +0000

Emily -

generally don’t get into deeper-level science discussions with people who don’t have the background because it leads to miscomprehension and digressions that I find tedious. I especially don’t like to do it online. Sorry.

Hehehe. No apologies necessary.

(my curiosity is geniune, btw)

OK!

- pD