The only question I do have is why this whole situation arose at all. How did a study that claimed that -
Individuals with ASC have significantly better visual acuity (20:7) compared with control subjects (20:13)-acuity so superior that it lies in the region reported for birds of preyever get published in the first place? You don't need to be any sort of skeptic to see that the idea is far-fetched on face value without even looking at the details.
Here's a suggestion to future peer-reviewers - if a study compares any facet of autism to a specialized or enhanced characteristic of an animal, you might want to look very closely at what the research claims to show. Because chances are it is going to be wrong.
I think the larger issue here is what appears to be a general trend among people who deal with autism - from parents to doctors to therapists to researchers - to want to assign some sort of special gift to people who have autism.
Why do people look at the sensory issues in autism and try and prove that the sensory issues are actually a good thing because they can see or hear or touch better than the rest of us? Is that supposed to make up for the fact that the distortion of the other senses must be almost torture to live with?
Why do people think about the repetitive and restricted interests in autism and decide that it is a blessing because they have strong interests that they can really focus on? I can really focus on a topic when I want to and can really push myself to become extremely knowledgeable about it. But I also have the freedom to decide to not to pay attention to it and to focus on something else. I don't know that people with autism have that same freedom.
Why is it that people who are otherwise very rational take a look at people who have the disability known as autism and decide that they must have some special gift to go along with the autism? In my experience, people with autism have the exact same proportion of special gifts that the rest of the population does.
Are the gifts commented on more because they stand out because of the stark contrast between the area of gift and the autism effected areas? Or is it that people in the field want to focus on the gifts to make themselves feel better about the whole autism thing?
Why is there all of this romancing the spectrum and how does this nonsense make its way into the published scientific literature?
I just don't get it.