Talk:Intellectual disability

intellectual disabilities

Name must be changed from mental retardation to intellectual disabilities first off because it is politically correct (PC). E.g., you wouldn't call an African-American as colored or - more scientifically (i.e. properly) - known as a certain term removed from American English (even though that term remains in Science [Anthropology]). Nor would you call a Deaf or Mute person as such, more correct terms would be "Hearing Impaired" and "Mouth Challenged". An additional, Politically Correct term for Retards is a widely accepted term "Mentally Challenged". "Mentally Challenged" term implies that person is not an Idiot (or Cretin in French), but merely a Hero struggling with its brain function, allowing the room for even an occasional over achievement (such as calculating the total expense on food purchased with a Foodstamps Card vs. using cash from Welfare Assistance and deciphering what part of it came from taxpayers, and what from sitting on a couch). The use of Politically Correct terms, assures the Dumb people that they're people too and helps America to remain a superpower due to its intellectual superiority. It is also proven, that watching MTV and Rap Shows helps one's mental function.
Style manuals, including the one produced by the ARC use the term intellectual disabilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevitogodfather (talk • contribs) 21:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But mental retardation is still commonly used, and best known. Intellectual disabilities is a growing term, but hasn't come close to replacing MR in common parlance or in the disability field. Drmargi (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree: political correctness is no reason to change an article. Wikipedia is not censored, and we should absolutely not tailor our content to whatever language is most fashionable among activist groups. I don't believe I have even heard the term intellectual disability except in the last day or so. If the word gains traction among the general public and media, then it would be appropriate to rename the article. By then, the activists will be saying "disability" is too negative and will have moved on to "intellectual differbilities" or some such. Fletcher (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The title should remain "mental retardation". Political correctness is not recognized by Wikipedia as a reason to favor one term over another. In fact, according to Wikipedia guidelines, the more commonly-used term should be the title of an article. On another note, African American and "colored" are not the same thing, because most black people in the world are NOT American. Only a politically-correct idiot would call Nelson Mandela an African-American. --JHP (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This field has been very vulnerable to "euphemism creep" in which one term replaces an older term deemed to have negative connotations, and then the newer term eventually comes to have the same negative connotations. We are in the process of making one of those switches right now - but it is not yet completed in North America, and there is not yet agreement on what the new term will be. In the UK that switch has already been made, but confusingly they use the term learning disabilities which has a completely different meaning in North America. I recommend that until we know what the new term is (when the next DSM comes out) that we stick with the appropriate term. I find that when I explain the label properly to people with the condition, and make it clear that they do not have to make it part of their identities but can use it when they need to to get services, that they are accept it, and indeed they have often already labelled themselves in order to explain their differences, and they may well be using much worse terms.--Vannin (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

However, we now do know that the new DSM is using intellectual disabilities. Shouldn't the change be made now?75.180.46.250 (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only does the DSM now use the term Intellectually Disabled, but so do NICHCY, the US Deptartment of Health and Human Services, the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, the Academy for Educational Development, and virtually every other reputable source now says "intellectually disabled." Even the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) changed their name to the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD). Yes, it's true that more people are familiar with the term "mental retardation," but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should perpetuate this. The page should be "Intellectual Disabilities" and a search for "mental retardation" should forward users to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.73.4 (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Anon 24, I'm not sure what planet you live on, but on Earth the "DSM now" is DSM-IV, which very clearly uses the term "Mental retardation" and does not use it interchangeably with "intellectual disability", which is glaringly obvious to anyone who has just glanced at the appropriate sections. DSM-V is years away from being published, and nothing has been finalized. Furthermore, as has been stated repeatedly here, ICD is the worldwide diagnostic system, and it uses "Mental retardation". This is a medical article and uses medical diagnostic terms. When ICD and DSM actually change the terminology (which is inevitable but years away), then you can come back and make your point. Cresix (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For crying out loud. To all the above posters, the term should neither be Mental Retardation nor Intellectual Disability. In the UK medical and care communities these outdated prejudicial terms have not been used in decades, even in medical literature, and are nowadays substituted by Mental Disability, with the intellectual component of said disability being universally referred to as Cognitive Impairment.

I do realise it is pointless me raising this concern, as these phrases seem pretty popular in the US, and I have had zero success in addressing this issue on other US-centric sites. I acknowledge the US is larger than the UK by a significant amount. But I'd be willing to bet that within the US medical community these phrases have fallen into disrepute also. Blitterbug (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not pointless simply because "the US is larger than the UK". "Mental retardation" currently is the prevailing term internationally because it is used by ICD, the international diagnostic system, and this is a medical article. If you'll read the discussions above and below about how the article should be titled, the suggested change to "Intellectual disabilities" was based largely on actions of the U.S. Congress. That change was rejected by consensus because this is a medical article, and internationally the current medical term is "Mental Retardation". Cresix (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Political correctness has a remarkable effect: after a while, nobody knows what they are talking about. Just to give a little history, as I see it: back in the Golden Age of America (50's and 60's), when things such as speaking your mind were allowed to a greater extent, playground chatter in grammar school involved calling one another a "ree-tard". Some kids, as is usual with people, took this much too seriously, and grew up, and found a cause in stamping out the word that was applied to them jokingly because they missed a math problem in 3rd grade. A word is needed; it is a fact of life; the word should not overlap with other concepts and impairments; get over it. I think these people are cretins, morons, imbeciles and idiots. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Eric

Blitterbug, have you read the article on Cognitive impairment (sometimes called "brain fog")? It's a completely different subject. People with (for example) Down syndrome do not have cognitive impairment, which is almost exclusively an adult-onset condition (and usually a temporary, acute condition resulting from severe illness or the side effects of medications). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Cognitive Impairment nowadays redirects to Clouding of Consciousness. However, neurologists use the term specific cognitive impairments nowadays, rather than mental retardation, or inetllectual disability, as a way to avoid the suggestion of a unitary neurological intelligence, yes? Dave Earl (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the previous statements about the term Mental Retardation (Intellectual Disability) in the United States it is currently listed as Mental Retardation in the DSM-IV this is to be changed in the new version of the DSM in 2013. I personally feel the term Mental Retardation should not be used and I feel the correct term to use in Intellectual Disability. I feel that the previous term indicates a lack of intellect in all areas, rather than specific areas of the intellect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.150.176 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I came this Wikipedia article 3 years ago and was offended by the title then. Very surprised and disappointed to see it hasn't changed yet. It is not that it's "politically correct" to call someone mentally disabled, but to say "retardation" is appallingly offensive. I love Wikipedia and admire the people who tirelessly work hard to ensure its quality, but this instance is disgraceful. Wikipedia contributors should be utterly ashamed of themselves. I look forward to the day it's changed. Crazy Eddy (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Grammar issues

Run-on sentence in the "IQ Below 70" section:

Factors other than cognitive ability (depression, anxiety, etc.) can contribute to low IQ scores, it is important for the evaluator to rule them out prior to concluding that measured IQ is "significantly below average".

Taking into account its context, I have edited the sentence to a)fix the run-on issue; b)remove redundancy; and c)clarify that the sentence is about disparities between IQ scores and actual intelligence, not IQ scores and "measured IQ" (which are the same thing!). Here is my version:

It is important that the evaluator rule out factors other than cognitive ability—such as depression, anxiety, etc.—prior to concluding that a low IQ test score indicates "significantly below average" intelligence.

History Section

This section contains some outdated factual innacuracies (such as Greeks identifying people with "mental retardation" as less than human- see Chris Goodey's recent work). Also, it seems a bit muddled up towards the middle, and I'm not sure why Civitans is singled out amongst the very large numbers of organisations such as Arc of the United States and Mencap which were bigger and emerged earlier. Finally, it seems typically US centric, and perhaps too long compared to the rest of the article. Who would object if I fixed it? Dave Earl (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Be bold, but cite your sources. Superm401 - Talk 05:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I think it would also be worthwhile incorporating the "History of the Terminology" with this, as "the condition" is not neccessarily independent of the "terminology".Dave Earl (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

History of the Terminology

I propose deleting most of what is currently there, and simply providing a list of historical terms such as idiot, imbecile, and moron. These terms already have their own pages which are well done. Mongolism and cretinism were always refering to the specific disorders so probably shouldn't be included in this more general page. Both pages have a history section included in them.

The sections on the United Kingdom and the United States seem to be discussing current and/or issues with or changes in terminology. I propose that we create a new section entitled "variations in terminology" (or similar). That section could explicitly address the varied terminology used today, and resolve many of the disputes in this talk page.

Thoughts?Dave Earl (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the following paragraph:

Unsourced and incorrect text

I removed the following paragraph:

"Other causes are increasing, perhaps due to rising maternal age, which is associated with several syndromic forms of mental retardation".

because, apart from it likely being completely false, is is unsourced.See WP:VERIFY. I was reverted by user:WhatamIdoing. I reverted back. But I'm not going to engage in an edit war, so let's discuss this here. When an unsourced statement is removed it is up to the editor who wants it inserted to justify it.

Let's look at this statement. Syndromic forms of mental retardation (of which Down Syndrome is by far the most common cause and which is also the one which has by far the most dramatic increase with maternal age) are probably less common than ever in the world today, because:

• most of these pregnancies in the Western World are discovered prenatally and aborted (for ex. in England and Wales in 2010, 64% of Down Syndrome were diagnosed prenatally and 92.1% of these were aborted http://www.wolfson.qmul.ac.uk/ndscr/reports/NDSCRreport10.pdf- I'm just giving you an example and actually in other European countries the detection/abortion rates are significantly higher, since in the UK there is quite a significant number of women who refuse the standard screening due to its drawbacks, and because they wouldn't abort anyway -because abortion is much more frown upon in the UK than in other places of Europe). You said, in your summary, that Down Syndrome is not the only form of syndromic MR- this is correct, but neither is it the only one which can be detected prenatally- many more can, especially through amniocentesis/chorionic villus sampling.Conclusion: in the Western World syndromic forms of MR are clearly less common than "in the past".

• outside the Western World widespread contraception was introduced only relatively recently, and due to its introduction, coupled with new changing social values, there are currently significantly less older women having children: the total fertility rate has decreased dramatically in the last decades from 6-7 children per woman to 2-3 (eg in India it's only 2.72). While the age of first birth has increased slightly in these countries, the number of children per woman has decreased dramatically and children born to women of (very) advanced ages have decreased dramatically.Conclusion: in the developing world the mothers are younger and syndromic forms of MR are clearly less common than "in the past".

Therefore the conclusion of the above is: syndromic forms of MR are clearly less common today in the world than "in the past".

Now in your edit summary you wrote "If X declines as a cause, then not-X increases proportionally. I suppose you meant that lead poisoning and infectious diseases, which were significant causes of MR in the past, have decreased - very true, but syndromic forms of MR have decreased too. All forms of MR have decreased today. Anyway, the most important thing: do you have a source for what you want to insert? Do you have a source about how various forms of MR as a proportion of total MR causes fare today compared to the past? And when you talk about "the past" to what historical period do you refer? And what part of the world do you have in mind? Skydeepblue (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 April 2012

I would like to add on to this page with additional information

Ccolbeth8 (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you specify what you want to add to the page? The way edit requests on protected pages work is that you specify what you want added or edited, and then someone who can edit the protected page does the edit for you. Usb10 ^{plug me in} 01:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

I find the following paragraph confusing:

"Several traditional terms denoting varying degrees of mental deficiency long predate psychiatry. All terms have been subjected to the euphemism treadmill. In common usage, these terms are simple forms of abuse. They are often encountered in old documents such as books, academic papers, and census forms (for example, the British census of 1901 has a column heading including the terms imbecile and feeble-minded)."

There are two confusions here. First - the third sentence appears to be written about the present, but the very next sentence talks about the past. It appears to be saying that the old books were using them as a form of abuse, which I suspect is not true. Other parts of the article talk about how these were the accepted medical terms, which gained pejorative connotations in the 60s. However, in other places, it states that "Throughout much of human history, society was unkind to those with any type of disability", so maybe this paragraph is saying that the academic papers were using them as a form of abuse. If not, the paragraph doesn't seem particularly well composed, as it groups fairly unrelated things together.

Second, the third sentence is overly broad - the terms can be used as a form of abuse, but they can also be used in ignorance of the pejorative content, etc.

Perhaps the paragraph would be better as:

Several traditional terms denoting varying degrees of mental deficiency long predate psychiatry. They are often encountered in old documents such as books, academic papers, and census forms (for example, the British census of 1901 has a column heading including the terms imbecile and feeble-minded). [a bit more info about how the terms were assimilated into psychiatry here.]

Then the following paragraphs can go on and document the shift in meaning.

I will also make the broader point that the article as a whole seems to blend discussion of the medical issues (this is a medical article) with the social aspects of the pejorative shift of all these terms. The latter is vital to document, but in about 4 places we are told that the terms have changed, that society's views on the condition are changing, etc. We are told twice about the efforts to change terminology by the Special Olympics. Then there are rather non neutral sentences like "others who want to use such terms as weapons with which to abuse people." It all makes the article hard to read from top to bottom. I read the article because I was interested in the terminology, not the details about the medical issues, and it is pretty hard to tease out the information. I'm sure someone interested in the medical issues would encounter similar difficulties.

I guess I could just go and edit this, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject matter to give it a good go, and am not entirely sure that my interpretation of various things is correct.