By the Numbers: Autism Is Not a Math Problem

At a meeting of the Icelandic Medical Association last week, Yale University child psychologist Fred Volkmar gave a presentation on how the American Psychiatric Association (APA) is changing the definition of autism. In his talk, Volkmar came to a startling conclusion: more than half of the people who meet the existing criteria for autism would not meet the APA’s new definition of autism and, therefore, may not receive state educational and medical services.

The APA defines autism in a reference guide for clinicians called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM). The newest version of the manual, the DSM-5, is slated for publication in May 2013.

In Iceland, Volkmar presented data from an unpublished preliminary analysis of 372 high-functioning autistic children and adults with IQs above 70. He plans to publish a broader analysis later this year. On a key PowerPoint slide that Volkmar shared with Scientific American, he notes that there are 2,688 ways to get a diagnosis of autistic disorder in DSM-IV, but only six ways to get a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in DSM-5. Although intriguing at first glance, it turns out that both these numbers are slightly wrong—and that they are pretty much useless when comparing the DSM-IV and DSM-5. You cannot reduce autism to a math problem.

Hubble Fellow Joshua Peek of Columbia University was asked to code a computer program that would calculate the total possible ways to get a diagnosis of autistic disorder in DSM-IV and the total possible ways to get a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in DSM-5. You can do the math by hand, too, if you like: It all comes down to factorials. The DSM-IV criteria are a set of 12 items in three groups from which you must choose 6, with at least two items from group one and at least one item each from groups two and three. The DSM-5 criteria are a set of seven items in two groups from which you must choose five, including all three items in group one and at least two of the four items in group two. Peek's program crunched the numbers: there are 2027 different ways to be diagnosed with autism in DSM-IV and 11 ways to be diagnosed with autism in DSM-5.

One might think that those statistics make it absurdly easy to qualify for a diagnosis of autism in DSM-IV and incredibly difficult to meet the criteria for autism in DSM-5, but those numbers alone don't tell you anything unless you understand how common each symptom of autism is in the general population. Symptoms of autism are not randomly distributed throughout the population and the symptoms do not cluster together in random combinations. Research in the past decade has shown that some symptoms appear together much more often than others. In fact, that is one of the main reasons that the APA has consolidated the DSM-IV criteria for autism into fewer, denser and more accurate criteria in the DSM-5. The idea is that the DSM-IV criteria allowed for too many possible combinations, many of which rarely occur; the DSM-5 criteria, in contrast, better reflect the most common combinations of symptoms.

Specifically, the APA has merged two distinct groups of symptoms from the DSM-IV—deficits in communication and deficits in social interaction—into one group in the DSM-5 because someone with autism almost always has both kinds of symptoms.

Most psychiatrists applaud this consolidation because, as several recently published studies have shown, the new criteria are more precise: they rarely assign autism to people who do not have it. However, the DSM-5 criteria may be a little too strict, ignoring some autistic people with milder symptoms. Two recently published studies suggest an easy fix: if the new criteria require that patients meet one fewer symptom—four out of seven instead of five out of seven—high-functioning autistic people will not be excluded.

Showtime's David Nevins On What It Takes To Make Sexy, Gripping TV (interview)

 

As someone who has been on different sides of the television business for more than a decade, what's your assessment of the television landscape right now?

In the early '90s, most networks turned down the idea for the television show that would become ER. Not David Nevins. Nevins championed the show, and was instrumental in making the series--which turned George Clooney into a star--one of the biggest hits in TV history.

Later, Nevins angled to get 24 on the air. And in his roles as an executive at NBC, FOX, and as president of Imagine Television, he helped bring a slew of commercial and critical hit shows to TV, including Will & Grace, Arrested Development, and The West Wing.

Since taking over as president of entertainment for Showtime Networks about a year and a half ago, Nevins has been strategically nurturing Showtime's current hits and finding future gems. He has focused as well on deepening the audience engagement around all the network's shows. Showtime's roster now includes Homeland, which premiered last fall, House of Lies, which premiered earlier this month, and returning shows like Shameless and Episodes, which will resume later this year. Showtime scored big at the recent Golden Globes, taking home three awards, including Best Drama Series for Homeland. Nevins spoke with Fast Company about the rapidly changing world of cable television and how he stays on top of the game as an innovator in the entertainment world where audience tastes evolve at an ever-accelerating pace.

David Nevins: I think it's an incredibly creative time in television in general and particularly at the higher end of cable. We're at a moment where independent film is really struggling and there aren't a lot of movies getting made. Movies that do get made need to be $100 million "tent pole" movies. As a result, a lot of films simply can't get made. So you've got the crème de la crème of great actors and great writers who are now interested in doing television. With the exception probably of the top 10 male and female box office stars, pretty much everybody else is fair game for television. Everything that we've ever done--and that I've ever done as a producer--has been script driven; these projects have never been developed for a specific actor. The idea is to get the best writer and develop a great script. Actors tend to be very smart readers. That's what gets people like Don Cheadle, Claire Daines, and Laura Linney to say yes to television. So it's a very exciting time creatively and it's where adults go for programming. Most adults get their most nourishing cultural enrichment from cable television.

Aside from having a great script, what is your sell to the directors and actors as to why they should come to Showtime?

The generic sell is that it's only 12 episodes a year, which is a four-month window--or one movie slot--if you are a movie actor or director. We also don't tend to cancel shows, so you know where you'll be for the next several years for that four-month window, which can be very desirable for a lot of actors. For Showtime, we try very hard to be the place of the most adventurous storytelling. We tend to push limits and be the place that is pushing the medium of television forward. I think people tend to be attracted to a place where they feel like they are able to do creatively adventurous work.

The medium and format allows you to take more of a risk. How do calculate your risk when you are thinking about a new show?

When it comes to storytelling, not taking risks is riskier than swinging for the fences. I have very simple ambitions when it comes to taking risks in storytelling and programming. I try very hard to avoid the expected. So much of television is incredibly predictable. You watch the first five minutes and you know where it's going to go. If you can just create an element of surprise in both the storytelling and tone of a show, you're going to be way ahead of the pack. I don't tend to think of it in terms of risk-taking. I ask more basic questions: Is there an element of surprise to this? Is this going to be entertaining? Is there any surprising reveal of humanity here? Those basic elements have driven writing for thousands of years. Storytelling is always moving forward, but the basic elements of what an audience is looking for haven't really changed.

A year ago when you left Imagine TV to come to Showtime, some people were surprised since the network was in such good shape. What attracted you to Showtime?

I love being a producer and I think I essentially still operate as a producer even though I now have control of marketing and the ability to greenlight shows--something every producer wants but that they don't get! I feel like I'm essentially doing the same job as when I operated primarily in the broadcast network ecosystem as a producer. I was always pushing up against the limits of the medium. 24 finally broke through and became a big hit, Arrested Development and Friday Night Lights both had great critical admirers but never quite broke through to mainstream hit status. I think I'm now in a place where those kinds of shows can really thrive. The 4.5-5 million people a week who watched Homeland on cable makes that a really big hit. The 4.5-5 million people who watched Friday Night Lights on a broadcast network prevented that from being a hit. I love being here where you get rewarded for the shows that challenge the status quo of the medium. Generally in television there's only a leadership transition when things go wrong, but in this case, Showtime was in a good place and I think in the last year we've gone to an even higher level. Winning best series at the Golden Globes this month was sort of a breakthrough moment for this network. It's really a new plateau.

Last year HBO won that category with Boardwalk Empire. HBO has long been viewed as the leader in pay cable. What do you have to do to take them on?

I really do think that we can both exist very well. The dirty little secret is that our businesses are actually quite tied together. Because of the way that cable gets sold, people just sign up for the premium package which often bundles HBO and Showtime together. The way we distinguish ourselves is largely a matter of original series. I try very hard to do shows that feel like they are about the world that we live in, that have real relevance. I think one of the reasons why Homeland and House of Lies have drawn big audiences is because they've resonated in the culture. House of Lies is about business and the people who run it and everything messed up therein. Homeland is about where we are 10 years after 9/11. They're both very much about where this country is today.

Homeland obviously shares a number of elements with another show you worked on: 24. I'm curious from your perspective what the differences are in the ways people respond to 24 and Homeland.

Obviously the DNA strands between Homeland and 24 are strong. The two shows share three of the same writers, and me. But in Homeland we were interested in telling a more psychologically complex story. There is less of a clear-cut hero than in 24. The effort in Homeland was to try and humanize all sides of the story, which was probably less of priority with 24. There, the primary driver really was adrenalin. Both shows really speak across the political spectrum. People from the left and people from the right are both able to take things from the shows that support their political views. I find that fascinating. When you do shows with multiple characters with well developed points of view, you can speak outside the political ghetto of right and left.

A famous Hollywood producer once said, "If you want to send a message, call Western Union." You talk about wanting to make shows that are relevant to our world. How do you strike a balance between dealing with issues that are relevant to our world and making entertaining programming?

You have to make it all rooted in very human characters with understandable human traits but who aren't too simple. I also like to be a bit of a provocateur. With Showtime being a premium network, I think it pays to be a little bit provocative. I try to be polite about it, but I like to tweak people's assumptions about a character, a situation, or a concept.

How are the changes in platforms and the way people consume TV changing the way you tell stories?

I think every year the audience gets more sophisticated and more demanding in terms of the amount of information and narrative that they can process. I like things that are full and stuffed and go in a lot of directions at once. I like stories with a collision of disparate tones. Look at Shameless or House of Lies. They go from big, silly, and comedic to very real dramatic moments in the wink of an eye. I think audiences more than ever are willing to go there. I think you just have to remain interesting and try really hard not to be boring. We also have some of the deepest engagement shows anywhere in the media business, Dexter, for one example, Homeland, for another. The fans of these shows have an incredible hunger for new content. Some of the comedy content that has been done to support House of Lies has been outrageously funny. Ben Schwartz comes out of the Funny or Die world, Kristen Bell has done some amazing comedy pieces as well, and we have a pretty distinguished House of Lies app. We have a whole division that's making games around Dexter. You have to constantly feed the beast and give people fresh new high-quality material. That's a challenge when your primary business is making A-level expensive programming for television. You have to support the TV experience with engagement experiences that can continue between and after episodes.

In the past few months there's also been a lot of buzz about high-quality TV shows being developed for the online-only market ...

We are dipping into that. I think we're well positioned to do it because we have such a strong brand that people associate with the cutting edge of programming. I think we are also looking at some point at doing some original stuff that is not tied to our A-level network programming, I think that's absolutely a possibility. But for the foreseeable future, that's not going to be a driver of our business.

Earlier this month you talked about how the next two seasons of Dexter will probably be the last. How do you replace a big show like Dexter that has been so central to your lineup?

After Dexter--which is still very high-rated--the next highest rated shows are all shows we've added in the last year: Shameless, Homeland, and House of Lies. That's a rare thing among networks. Most networks tend to hang on too long and don't use current hits to seed future hits. We very deliberately used Dexter to seed Homeland. Our shows tend to take two or three years to reach critical mass. Shameless attracted a lot of viewers after its initial run went off the air, that's what led to a 50% rise in audience for this year's premiere over last year.

 

And I just have to ask...what can we expect from Episodes when it returns later this year?

Episodes is going to be a big promotional priority this season. Last season we had a very short order, this season we have nine episodes. I think it took a while for the show to get its characters established last year. This year, the show is established. It's now a full-fledged ensemble with six characters. This can be the funniest show on television and I hope by this time next year that's what people are going to be saying about it. I went to London for the table read of all the episodes. We did them all in one day. It was probably the funniest day of table reads I've ever been in, and I've been involved in some pretty funny shows. Merc's blind wife plays a prominent role and becomes involved with Matt LeBlanc's character in really funny, surprising ways. We start seeing what's going on with the mirthless comedy executive. It becomes an ensemble that is firing on all cylinders. I think we're going to make a lot of noise with it.

Mathematician claims breakthrough in Sudoku puzzle

An Irish mathematician has used a complex algorithm and millions of hours of supercomputing time to solve an important open problem in the mathematics of Sudoku, the game popularized in Japan that involves filling in a 9x9 grid of squares with the numbers 1-9 according to certain rules.

Gary McGuire of University College Dublin shows in a proof posted online on January 1 that the minimum number of clues--or starting digits--needed to complete a puzzle is 17; puzzles with 16 or fewer clues do not have a unique solution. Most newspaper puzzles have around 25 clues, with the difficulty of the puzzle decreasing as more clues are given.

The emerging consensus among mathematicians at a conference in Boston, Mass., on January 7 was that McGuire's proof is probably valid and an important advance in the growing field of Sudoku mathematics.

"The approach is reasonable and it's plausible. I'd say the attitude is one of cautious optimism," says Jason Rosenhouse, a mathematician at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., and the co-author of a newly released book on the mathematics of Sudoku.

The rules of Sudoku require puzzlers to fill out a 9x9 grid with the numbers 1-9 so that no digit is repeated within the same column, row, or 3x3 sub-grid. The clues are the numbers that are filled in to begin with, and enthusiasts have long observed that although there are some puzzles with 17 clues, no one has been able to come up with a valid 16-clue puzzle. That led to the conjecture that 16-clue puzzles with unique solutions simply do not exist. A potential way to demonstrate that could be to check all possible completed grids for every 16-clue puzzle, but that would take too much computing time. So McGuire simplified the problem by designing a 'hitting-set algorithm'. The idea behind this was to search for what he calls unavoidable sets, or arrangements of numbers within the completed puzzle that are interchangeable and so could result in multiple solutions. To prevent the unavoidable sets from causing multiple solutions, the clues must overlap, or 'hit', the unavoidable sets. Once the unavoidable sets are found, it is a much smaller--although still non-trivial--computing task to show that no 16-clue puzzle can hit them all.

Having spent two years testing the algorithm, McGuire and his team used about 700 million CPU hours at the Irish Centre for High-End Computing in Dublin, searching through possible grids with the hitting-set algorithm. "The only realistic way to do it was the brute force approach," says Gordon Royle, a mathematician at the University of Western Australian in Perth who had been working on the problem of counting 17 clue puzzles using different algorithms. "It's a challenging problem that inspires people to push computing and mathematical techniques to the limit. It's like climbing the highest mountain."

A consequence of the approach taken is that it will take some time for others to get enough computing time to check the proof, says Laura Taalman, a mathematician also at James Madison University, who co-authored the book Taking Sudoku Seriously: The Math Behind the World's Most Popular Pencil Puzzle with Rosenhouse. Taalman notes that the book, which came out last week, is already outdated: it says that the problem remains open and that whoever solves it will be a "rock star."

McGuire says that his approach may pay off in other ways. The hitting-set idea that he developed for the proof has been used in papers on gene-sequencing analysis and cellular networks, and he looks forward to seeing if his algorithm can be usefully adapted by other researchers. "Hopefully this will stimulate more interest," he says. 

But he says that, ironically, as he dedicated more of his time to the mathematics of the conundrum, he spent less time enjoying the puzzle. "I still find it a nice way to relax now and then but to be honest I prefer doing the crossword," he says.

"Your World" Or Their World? Google's New Feature Controls Personal Info In Search

If Google's to be trusted, Google is the only source you need when Googling around for information. At least, that's the impression one gets from Google's new "Your World" feature.

Google's official press blog about the news sets things out pretty clearly: "Google Search has always been about finding the best results for you," it begins, then points out that, "Sometimes that means results from the public web, but sometimes it means your personal content or things shared with you by people you care about." According to Google, it's been letting you down since, "These wonderful people and this rich personal content is currently missing from your search experience. Search is still limited to a universe of webpages created publicly, mostly by people you’ve never met." But now the fix is in, as today it's "changing that by bringing your world, rich with people and information, into search." 

But it mainly works if your world is hinged on a Google+ profile, or you use Picasa, and so does everyone you know.

Google argues that it's merely a continuation of the trend it began by introducing Social Search and expanded on with Google+, and it does give a couple of useful case studies where its system really has value. Google can know who you are and who your friends are, even in a complex social network. Or, as Google puts it, "When I search for [Ben Smith], I now find my dear friend Ben every time, instead of the hundreds of other Ben Smiths out there (no offense to all of them!)." That's definitely useful, as is the fact "you’ll find profile autocomplete predictions for various prominent people from Google+, such as high-quality authors from our authorship pilot program." 

But when you select an author profile, if you’re a signed-in Google+ user, you’ll be prompted to add them to your circles "right on your search results page," Google says. So this is not only mostly about expanding my use of Google+ by heavily emphasizing that I use it when I'm merely searching for something. According to Google, now when you're signed in to its services, and Your World is working "if you search for a topic like [music] or [baseball], you might see prominent people who frequently discuss this topic on Google+ appearing on the right-hand side of the results page." 

Google closes its blog by emphasising privacy and options--you can turn off Your World with a jab at a switch on the search page to see unemphasized search results as you would've previously (or if you're not logged in), and you can even set that as your default. Attention is also drawn to the added security of SSL encryption of personalized results data, and the public-versus-private options within Google+'s sharing options.

But that's beside the point. Google is splattering personal and social-inferred results all over its search results page from one social network source only: Google itself. Not Facebook, which is the world's biggest such net nor Twitter--which once drove Google to amazing heights of real-time search and newsiness. Sure Google+ is apparently growing fast (although some question the data as dubious), but isn't Google really pulling a land grab with this trick? Isn't it subtly and continuously promoting its own social network at every opportune moment in its search service, at the detriment of its better peers? 

"As always, our goal is to provide you with the most relevant and comprehensive search results possible," a spokesperson tells Fast Company via email. "That’s why for years now we’ve been working with our social search features to help you find the most relevant information from your friends and social connections, no matter what site that content is on. However, Google does not have access to crawl all the information on some sites, so it’s not possible for us to surface all that content. Google also doesn’t have access to the social graph information from some sites, so it’s not possible to help you find information from those people you’re connected to." Fair enough, but it may not be enough for to help Google fend off accusations of preferential treatment--what do they expect their peers to do, let Google scrape their precious social graph? The spokesman also confirmed Your World is turned on by default, and that while there's no super-direct way of preventing your data showing up in someone else's World data it wants "users to be able to search over any content they have access to see. The important part is to ensure you’re sharing content with right people. If you change access rights in Google+ or Picasa, those changes will be reflected in search."

Still, there's an inherent PR risk in exposing to every logged in user exactly how deep Google's insight into their social sphere is--a creepiness factor that's hard to combat. And considering how Google has been repeatedy slapped for privacy issues, misleading search results, and allegedly monopolistic practices the world over, I'd say you can set the timer on a Your World-related lawsuit in 3 ... 2 ...

The launch of this new service has caused a veritable explosion of disbelief online. Twitter decided to register its distaste, citing the lack of "real time" news Google+ has and noting it's a biased system. Google, incredibly, first said (using Google+, of course) it was "surprised" by Twitter's comments then blamed Twitter for Google's actions, noting Twitter decided not to renew the real time search contract in mid-2011. Although we can only guess what the terms and conditions of the deal were, Twitter obviously decided it was unfavorable--and it came shortly before Google launched its own competitor to Twitter. Google's Eric Schmidt even spoke in an interview to argue Google+ isn't "favored" at all in Your World...despite the fact it's the only social graph available in Your World, and Google's decided not to even link to the publicly accessible statuses for, say, a popular band or brand from Twitter or Facebook.

How To Work From Home Like You Mean It ??

Despite all the stories you’ve heard, the hardest part of working from home isn’t putting on pants every day. 

I’ve been working from home, a few different homes, since late 2007. And the biggest thing I've learned during those four years is that working from home doesn’t have to change how you get work done, but it does change nearly everything else about your gig. When there are hard, regular deadlines and a constant flow of work, it is just like being at an office--with the added advantage that nobody else is there to interrupt my train of thought with an impromptu visit. And then there were times when I nearly broke down and told the boss the truth about why that weeklong project was in such sad shape: Because just when I need to focus it becomes clear that there are a lot of interesting links to look at on the Internet. Like this one.

I'm far from the only person to have confronted the joys and challenges of telecommuting. So I asked a few productive work-from-homers what they would do differently, if they could go back in time and reboot their office. Here’s a bit of home-working hindsight that might help you out the next time you’re going to work from home, whether it's for a day or a career.

Look the Part, Be the Part

It’s one of far too many great quotes from Proposition Joe in The Wire, and great advice for getting more done at home.

Dressing for work and "arriving" on time, eating lunch on a rigid schedule, shaving, brushing, and so on seems pointless at first. But not doing these basic preparations is the start of a steep, Teflon-coated slope to all kinds of other transgressions. If you’re not dressed well enough to greet the UPS delivery person, you’re giving yourself license to hide. If you’re hiding, then you imagine nobody can see Netflix open on your second monitor. On and on it goes, until you spend a two-hour lunch watching Portlandia on your couch with your iPad, grabbing your way through a bag of kettle chips. After that you'll try and fake your way through an afternoon of self-loathing busywork.

It’s not clever psychological trickery. It’s having respect for the work you do, wherever you do it. John Herrman, tech writer and assistant editor at Popular Mechanics, suggested in a Twitter chat that it's almost like treating your working self's worst tendencies like a prisoner of war, or maybe someone suffering from grief: Keeping up rituals, routines, and appearances is how you train yourself to do your work when you're supposed to, and set aside the fun stuff for after hours.

Schedule offline social time, batch your online social time

When you're in an office, you'll occasionally wish for fewer distractions, more privacy, and for Todd in acquisitions to find a job somewhere else. When you've been working from home at a frantic clip, you'll start to realize how much you miss talking to somebody other than your dog, having a good excuse to get up from your desk, and sharing in the struggle of other workers with intolerable bosses. And you start to fear you're heading toward the social condition depicted by The Oatmeal.

So schedule some regular out-of-home social times. When those sometimes fall through, you’ll realize the value of "batching" your online social time. It's very tempting to keep a Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ tab open at all times, along with Reddit, Hacker News, and other forums and fast-moving link-based sites. When they're always open, they're the equivalent of distracting coworkers, constantly shifting your attention away to complaints, jokes, gossip, and "Did you see..." discussions--the kind of stuff that makes it hard to get work done at work. You also come to appreciate them less, and they become more of a utility.

As geeky as it sounds, then, put your two or three "social breaks" right on your daily agenda or calendar. Don't open social or addictive news sites until that time. Breaking the habit will be hard at first, so try a tool like RescueTime to literally block yourself from your impulses and enforce your segmented work and play times.

Realize when the problem is motivation, not space

Distractions, temptations, and kids can all legitimately get in the way of doing work at home. But sometimes you have to step back and look at other reasons why you're avoiding the work that needs doing. Is it really because you don’t want to do it?

This is perhaps the hardest part of working from home. At an office, you are very likely to be found out and penalized if you spend all day checking Facebook or replaying Portal 2, so you at least make a stab at moving forward on even the most painful tasks. At home, it's up to you to stay motivated, and the things toward the very bottom of the Awesome Challenging Fun list might never get done.

The only real solution is summed up by designer and iOS developer Neven Mrgan: "Wake up unable to stop thinking about the awesome thing you're working on." If you lack for an awesome project, or a sense of where the work in front of you is going to take you, that’s probably the reason you’ll do anything other than what you have to do. Luckily, you can think that through and plan your next move anywhere, whether at home, in the office, or in line at the grocery store.

Kevin Purdy is one of the "most-read" authors on the web, according to Read It Later.