Talk:Stimming/Archive 1

Archive 1

Possible Merge

As Stimming is a slang term for Stereotypic Movement Disorder (or if not, certainly the most obvious behavioural trait of the abovementioned disorder), should the two articles not be merged? ~Leftblank

No. People with other conditions have stims or stereotypies. Sandy (Talk) 01:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected stereotypy (psychiatry) to list more of the conditions that include stereotypies: stimming is *not* a slang term for stereotypic movement disorder. Stereotypic movement disorder specifically precludes other diagnoses, such as the pervasive developmental disorders (see the DSM criteria). I removed the merge tag, as one is a diagnosis, the other is a symptom of several different diagnoses. Sandy (Talk) 02:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

People of this name

Just as a side information, there exist also several people of this name. Prof. Ulrich Stimming [1] of Technische Universität München (University of Technology, Munich, Germany), Physics Departments, is probably famous enough so that someone might start the article sooner or later. --134.28.254.10 13:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PDD-centric?

"Stimming is a behavior observed in people who have Asperger's syndrome or autism. It refers to performing an action that gives the person comfort" Is this word used only in the frame of PDDs? Apokrif 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the only context in which I've heard it used, though admittedly I haven't read much psychology literature. The concept and the slang term were probably first joined in the PDD care community, and if they appear in other situations, it's probably culturally derivative. --BlueNight 03:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it occurs in other situations which are not autism-related (e.g.; Stereotypic movement disorder). That's partly why the statement is no longer in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-Injury

I removed an entire paragraph from the end of the article that had dealt with self-injury. It lacked citation, and had been so marked for some time. Normally I'd leave it in with the Citation Needed tag, but it was a bit prejudicial against stereotypy so I've removed it. I'll include it here in its entirety should someone desperately want to restore it:

"Sometimes self-injury is viewed as a form of stimming. Usually, self-injury is very different from stimming, but people with decreased pain sensitivity may injure themselves because they like the feel of it, similar to other stims. For example, they might like the way their hand feels in the mouth when they bite themselves, while not feeling the pain of the bite. Or they might like pressure on their forehead and bang their head without it hurting, even if they are risking brain damage."

--Llewdor (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Good move; I should have removed it long ago, and just never got around to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a neologism?

The references provided do not use this word. I cannot find it in dictionaries. Could you provide some reliable references where this word is used. Mattisse 01:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides added the cite (as shown in history) and he would not add a cite if the cite didn't verify the text. Are you making the mistake of reading the abstract only instead of the full-text of the journal study? Also, did you look at the title of the second reference? This is such a common word that I'm surprised you would inquire. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, try http://scholar.google.com with a search on stimming autism; you'll get over 100 hits (like this one). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Another example at PMID 12160695 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The cited source (Nind & Kellett 2002) does mention timming, and refers to "NEUFELDT, A. H., BICKLEN, D., FELDMAN, M., JONES, R. and McDONALD, S. (1998). 'Self-injurious and stereotypic behaviour: commentary on the current state of knowledge', International Journal of Practical Approaches to Disability, 22, 29–31. I just now checked Google Scholar and the oldest mention I found was the following quote from Maag et al. 1986 (PMID 3957861): "… the teacher said a stern "No stimming' …". In all the examples I found (including Nind & Kellett), it's clear that stimming is a relatively informal word; it's not used in a technical sense by autism researchers, but seems to be a popular word in special education. Eubulides (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Building article/Controversy?

I wanted to find out the meaning of this word and found this article. However, I was disappointed that it is only a dictionary definition, which does not constitute a proper article and could probably be deleted on those grounds. I thought I would quikcly drop in some examples of stimming and a couple more refs, but hesitated when I read up on it. It seems to be, as you guys have said here, a rather informal word, being used by some to mean only dramatic autistic "abnormal" behaviour and by others to refer to everything from shouting and waving your arms around to just tapping a pencil- on the assumption (?) that is has the same cause and function. Also, apparently some people assume that it should be considered as a malfunction and firmly discouraged whereas others that it is natural and beneficial. Beware also that the top pages of searches include articles by self-promoting individuals and unqualified, non peer-reviewed work. The following article is probably useful info, but probably not a usable ref: http://www.jeanshaw.com/site/1357437/page/875494 —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceDragon64 (talk • contribs) 10:28, October 19, 2009

No, it is not a neologism; the article is undeveloped, but the term is amply used in medical literature. A Google Scholar search on stimming autism returns about 5,000 hits. The jeanshaw site isn't useful; in fact, appears to be a promotional site. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with merge

This article was merged into Stereotypy. Unfortunately the result is misleading, as it's only a hypothesis that stereotypy is stimming, and this hypothesis is supported only by anecdotal evidence; this is made clear by the cited source, Nind & Kellog 2002 (doi:10.1080/08856250210162167). In such a case a redirect from Stimming to Stereotypy seems unwise, as it appears to endorse this hypothesis. I've reverted the Stimming part of the change. Given the problem, I suspect there may be similar issues with other parts of the change. Eubulides (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see the point that the behaviour labelled "stimming" in ASDs is only hypothesised to be self-stimulatory, but surely it is still classed as a stereotypy? If that is true, then this page could be redirected stereotypy, where it is already mentioned ("Stereotypy is sometimes called stimming in autism, under the hypothesis that it self-stimulates one or more senses"), citing the same source.

Some comments on the article at present:

• It doesn't mention the term is widely used in the ASD literature, less so literature concerning stereotypical behaviour in other conditions.
• It doesn't say that this term is really only used for an odd behaviour in people with an underlying medical disorder. Hence the "masturbation" additions.
• The wording "it has a function related to sensory input" is rather strange and accademic. I'd expect to see the words "stimulating" and "senses".
• It doesn't mention this is an informal term, or that stimming behaviours are called "stims".

The first three points are actually covered by the single sentence in stereotypy. If we can't improve this article beyond a few sentences of dictdef, and this can be classed as a stereotypy, then I'd support changing this to a redirect and expanding on the sentence in stereotypy. -- Colin°^Talk 08:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Martin Stimming (artist)

A lot of users, including myself, come here looking for Marting Stimming (the DJ), at the point where "Stimming dj wiki" is one of the proposed searches by google when entering "Stimming". In my opinion Stimming should either be a WP:D or mention the Artist with a WP:HAT. — Superuser27  ^{contributions - talk} 14:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Link to Restless Leg Syndrome

Seems to fit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5681:2F50:D822:CF2D:38D0:5BDD (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Stimming isn't exclusive to people with autism

As stated in another section, the term "autistic community" isn't only vague, but also not entirely precise. It's common among all neurodivergent people (Autism, ADHD..) and also people with Anxiety, OCD, and PTSD. It’s just more widely known in relation to Autism. The article should at least mention that.

Additionally, the article still gives stimming a more negative meaning, which is still an issue. AllyThea (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Stimming as a neurotypical behaviour or not a condition-specific behaviour?

I'm not sure I understand the difference between stimming and similar urges that occur in many people that don't appear to have any underlying condition. Many people get the urge to pop bubble wrap, squish stressballs or play with hydro gel, is this behavior considered stimming or is there a difference?

As I understand it, stimming is a strong complusive response to stress. The desire to, for example, pop bubble wrap is (in most neurotypicals) just something considered fun. So they are different, although i suppose poppoing bubble wrap could be a form of stimming for some — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C481:4640:8CC3:CDDD:6246:6989 (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I would support the viewpoint that stimming is found in all humans, nail-biting, knee jiggling, fiddling with objects, hair sucking, hair stroking etc. are found in neurotypical as well as neurodivergent people. The only difference between the two groups is in frequency and presentation, i.e the type of stimming - hand-flapping is a much less common form of stimming in neurotypicals. Urselius (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Beeturk, FelicityWright.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Stim ring

There is a photograph captioned “stim ring”, which specifies that it has a lanyard which is tied in a particular knot. However, the article does not define stim ring, or explain its purpose, manner of use, the significance of the lanyard or the knot. Perhaps these aren’t needed by those familiar with the subject, but the general audience seeking information will be as mystified as me. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

As the image description hints at, the ring is chewable, i.e. one can chew on it rather than biting nails, ones tongue, or other items/clothes. There are also other kinds of "stim rings", e.g., rings with a nice texture or small spikes/needles that one can wear on a finger and "play" with.

I don't have a good source at hand (a Google search mainly returns online shops). But I think even without a source we can remove the overly specific description of the knot from the image description and instead explain in more detail that the ring is meant to be chewed on.

If you understood my explanation, I suggest you go ahead and simply rephrase the image description so that you and potentially other readers can understand it.--TempusTacet (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks prompting me to learn a little, TempusTacet (talk · contribs). They are a new (?) variation on an old concept. I remember hearing of worry beads. I think “fidget“ as a noun is another fairly new term. I saw spinners being sold in many places a few years ago and wondered why people bought them. So there is it a whole class of what might be called stimulus objects, everything from Baoding balls to having the cat on your lap.

I will write a short caption for the Stimming article. However, can you tell me whether this fits under some general article such as, say, “stimulus for relaxation“ or “stimulus objects“? (I remember coming across some Wikipedia function “what links here“ but I can’t find it.) I noted a couple of other topics on the talk page questioning whether this was something new and whether this term only applied to some disorder. There certainly ought to be a more general article. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you looking for Special:WhatLinksHere/Stimming? I can find that link in the list of Tools shown to the right side of my screen when I read or edit articles.

I'm afraid that I can't answer your question regarding a more general article or terminology. For sure, toys and other objects to fiddle/fidget with are quite common across the world and used by a large variety of people. I would assume that humans have done that since they existed and would not be surprised to learn that there are animals that show similar behavior.

"Stimming" is a term used by autistic people to refer to a specific behavior for which they feel a need/urge. I believe (but do not know!) that "stimming" is not used outside the context of autism, even though all people "stim" to some degree and enjoy doing so. Since autistic people can develop stims that are harmful or damaging (such as picking skin or chewing on objects) specific "stim toys" are created as a replacement for the harmful/damaging behavior. Further, there are "stim toys" that one can carry around in public (or keep on ones desk in the office) without it being overly noticeable by others. The "stim ring" in the image is an example of both.--TempusTacet (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the word stim might be used as a shorthand for stimulation in all its various meanings, but stimming is mostly used in the autistic sense. —Soap— 12:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Prevalence among autistics

We currently have the sentence

Stimming behavior is almost always present in autistic people but does not, on its own, necessarily indicate the diagnosis.

cited to a reference that does not agree with us on that claim. It's possible the reference is meant to correspond to something else in that paragraph, but got pushed together with the prevalence claim over time. Is it really almost always present? I'm no professional and this is way out of my field, but I remember one other autistic person telling me that most adult autistics don't stim, and I wonder if this claim is left over from the bygone era in which autism was a disorder "of children" that went essentially unrecognized in adulthood. I'd at least wager that among autistics, stimming is more common in childhood since even autistics are less socially inhibited in early childhood than in adulthood, and possibly also for neurochemical reasons that are a whole other field of study. Should we remove this claim, or at least water it down to just say that it's common? Thanks, —Soap— 20:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the answer to this point is a bit complicated. What is colloquially called "stimming" is a characteristic symptom of autism and has been a diagnostic feature for ASD in both the DSM and the ICD since at least the early 1990s (DSM-IV/ICD-10). The DSM-5 groups it under the "Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities" (criterion B, sub-criteria 1 and 4). It does not have to be present for a diagnosis but it is very typical.

It is often mentioned that "motor stereotypies" are more prevalent among autistic children or autistic people with intellectual impairments but this does not mean that others do not stim. Rather, the specific "stims" change and become more "socially appropriate". The DSM-5-TR states: "Many individuals with autism spectrum disorder without intellectual or language impairments learn to suppress repetitive behavior in public." Suppressing stimming is a form of autistic masking. This study (freely accessible preprint) finds that all surveyed adults (whether autistic or non-autistic) stim to some degree but stimming in the autistic group differs and autistic participants were much more likely to have altered their stims due to social pressure. It's not representative of autistic/non-autistic people in general but the results are in line with what is typically assumed.--TempusTacet (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

2015 Erasmus Prize image

@1Veertje Is there a source somewhere saying that the person in the image [2] is autistic? Some1 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I am the person in the picture. 1Veertje (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, okay. So the image caption is accurate then? Some1 (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC) I see now after looking through the revision history that you were the one that added the image [3], so I think my question is answered. Some1 (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Photo

There are two photos of me as a young boy washing my hands that could potentially fit here, but several things have kept me from uploading them. First, it may give undue representation to what I think is probably an uncommon stim. Secondly, it wouldnt be clear to the viewer what I was doing .... in the second photo I've crawled up to the sink in a position that makes it clear I wasn't expected to do that, but that doesn't really prove anything. Lastly, I'm worried that once I upload the photo, it will be rejected and yet stay on Commons forever just because it's difficult to get rid of uploads. I don't know. There was also a video of me, around 10 years old, stimming with bath toys .... that video makes it obvious what I'm doing, but it was on a VHS tape and I don't think my parents ever digitized it. —Soap— 14:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It's difficult to say without seeing the photos. Do you have the option of uploading them to a third-party website that would allow you to delete them and then share the links here?

The photo of the person stimming with their hands at the ceremony is quite subtle and you can only really see it if you open the photo full screen. I still think that's a great example/illustration.--TempusTacet (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for such a prompt reply. I have uploaded my two pictures to http://alphabetbathtoys.com/photos/. This is my personal website; sorry for the lack of SSL, but I assure you that my site is safe. In the first picture, I just look like a boy washing his hands, except that I look slightly annoyed, as I think my mother was coming to tell me to stop. In the second photo, I'm in a painful position, suggesting that the pleasure was strong enough to me that it was worth the pain (and I was perhaps not smart enough to use the footstool that was right next to me). Do you think we can use these photos? Particularly the second one. Thanks, —Soap— 19:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing these pictures. I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be used and I agree that the second photo is better suited as an illustrative example. I think that if you clearly state that these are photos of an autistic child stimming (sensory seeking?) and not just a random kid playing with the sink nobody will object your upload/donation.--TempusTacet (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I'll probably go ahead with this, but I want to wait a while longer to think some more, and perhaps others will comment. I admit that Im tempted to put my photo at the top, but I worry that I'd be taking a place I don't deserve, and perhaps also giving the false impression that stimming is mostly associated with small children. But I still think I will most likely at least upload the photo soon. —Soap— 20:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine to put the photo at the top. WP:BEBOLD.--TempusTacet (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I am still going to do this, but I need some more time to think. —Soap— 20:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I finally added the photo. I think the lede photo should be neutral, and it's good that it's an object that's highlighted rather than an activity. That said, I appreciate your positive words, and so I decided to put my photo in second place, above the only other photo that shows a person. I would be willing to change it later if a new discussion arises. This project has been around more than twenty years now, and I hope we last another twenty years, so there will be plenty of time to make changes later on. One last thing ... I wrote that I was playing in the water rather than washing my hands ... to me at that age, those were the same thing, but I used the former phrase for two reasons ... first, it fits better with the fact that I would be at the sink for quite a long time if my parents allowed me, and secondly, I dont want people to confuse this with the much more common behavior of compulsive hand washing, which is definitely not what I was doing. Best regards, —Soap— 18:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I removed the photo. The current lead image of rubbing faux-fur provides a better example of stimming than the image you added. And there's already three images on this article —a fourth, that isn't much of an improvement over the others, isn't necessary. Some1 (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You have just described my photo as an improvement over the two I had placed it above. Would you therefore be okay if we deleted one of the existing photos, and replaced it with mine? That way the article would have three photos just like it did before.

However, that is not my preferred solution. I believe the article should have more photos, not less. I'd actually wanted to add File:Autistic-sweetiepie-boy-with-ducksinarow.jpg as well, and perhaps others, and to move most of the photos to a gallery at the bottom so that they aren't too bunched together on the page. But I held off on adding that photo because of the discussion below and felt that just adding just one photo didn't require reorganizing the layout of the page.

We may have some common ground. We both agree that the current lede photo belongs there, and perhaps we also agree that the two other photos on the page currently are both for uncommon stims, and do not give naive readers a good understanding of the subject. But there are not many other photos for us to choose from ... in theory, there might be similar pictures on free media sites like Flickr, but I am not willing to upload a picture of someone else, or of someone else's child, in an embarrassing pose that they might not want to share with the world. My decision to upload a picture of myself is not an ego trip, but an honest attempt to better illustrate the concept by adding a picture I believe better illustrates the concept than any other picture available on Commons.

I don't want to become a pest, but as I said above, I had already worried about this situation before I uploaded the photo, and I spent more than two weeks thinking about how to handle possible rejections. Since I believe that the photo improves the article, I need to defend my choice, and not meekly roll over at the slightest objection. Again, I believe my photo improves this article and that I've answered your objection in narrow terms, and that it would be ideal to add even more photos, if only we can find photos that properly describe stimming and are not infringing on anyone's privacy.

I'd be interested in others' opinions.

Best regards,

—Soap— 03:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You have just described my photo as an improvement over the two I had placed it above. No I didn't, I said the fourth (the one you added) isn't much of an improvement over the others. Sorry, but the photo you added just looks like a kid washing his hands, which doesn't illustrate what 'stimming' is and provides no additional value to the article. And I agree with TempusTacet's comment below regarding the ducks in a row picture and why that image doesn't belong in this article. Regarding your gallery proposal, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says that "not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting." Some1 (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I addressed this objection with my very first post on June 28, started a discussion on this talk page, and decided my image would make the article better. I understand that my viewpoint isn't going to convince everyone, but I hope you understand that I added the photo after having thought about your very same objection, along with other potential objections, for two full weeks ... your objection isn't something I decided to simply ignore.

I can expand on my reasoning a bit .... a naive reader coming to this page to learn about self-stimulation is likely to be unfamiliar with the subject, and if they know any stim it's most commonly head-banging. The picture we show currently is surely no more transparent as a stim to the average reader than the photo I uploaded. If the Erasmus photo weren't labeled as stimming, would anyone even notice? Indeed I would wager that the vast majority of pictures showing someone engaging in self-stimulation as it actually is would be opaque to the average reader. Adding more pictures and labeling them as stims will show the reader that there is more to stimming than headbanging and whatever else they may be familiar with from pop culture.

If for some reason we decide as a wider community that there must be only one picture in this article depicting a person actually engaging in the named behavior, I will concede that it's probably better to show an adult rather than a child, if only because a naive reader may be still under the impression that autism is a disorder of children and having a child as the only photo of a person adds to that false stereotype. However, I hope this is a choice we won't need to make. The MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE page you linked says that too many images can be distracting, but also prominently recommends that we strive for variety. If your view is that two images depicting people is already too many, it is impossible to have variety, and I would say that you're missing the point of the page. Best regards, —Soap— 14:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that you made a WP:BOLD edit to the article and added an image that you think would improve the page, and per WP:BRD, we're discussing the image right now. I unfortunately disagree with your addition of the image as stated above. I have also removed the second image (Erasmus Prize) as I agree that that image doesn't convey the concept of stimming well to the readers either.

The article currently states that common examples of stimming (sometimes called stims) include hand flapping, clapping, rocking, excessive or hard blinking, pacing, head banging, repeating noises or words, snapping fingers, and spinning objects and can sometimes be self-injurious, such as when it involves head-banging, hand-biting, excessive self-rubbing, and scratching the skin. Instead of adding more images, and to "strive for variety", I suggest finding/adding a video of a person doing one of those activities - that would greatly improve the article. Some1 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reliably prompt replies, but WP:BOLD is a perfect example of everything I did not do. This should be plain to all passing by ... I proposed adding a photo, asked for advice, discussed finer details of which photo to use, where to put it, and how to explain to a naive reader that it is what it is. I waited for two weeks to see if anyone would object or even have more questions, and then uploaded my photo. And I put it in a less prominent position than where I was encouraged to.

If any of us is behaving boldly, it is you, as you took no part in the discussion on this talk page, but then removed my photo without discussing it on the talkpage first. And then five days later you removed the Erasmus photo, again without prior discussion on the talk page. I would be well within my rights to restore my upload now, as I would be simply returning the article to the state it was in before you made your two undiscussed deletions.

Right now, though, Im interested in hearing a clearer explanation of your opposition to my photo in particular. At first, you seemed to be against only my photo, and then five days later you were against both of them, saying that neither of them were helpful to readers and that we should instead look for videos of people engaging in the more classic stims. But now that the original uploader of the Erasmus photo has restored it, I wonder if you're okay with that photo after all. If so, what changed your mind? Regards, —Soap— 06:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

within my rights to restore my upload now, as I would be simply returning the article to the state it was in before you made your two undiscussed deletions. Well, you added your photo on July 12 and I reverted it a couple of hours later, so the WP:STATUSQUO is the article without your image. As for the Erasmus image, I did question the accuracy of the caption (for example, is the adult really autistic and stimming, or is a random editor just labelling them that way), but my questions were answered in the Talk:Stimming#2015 Erasmus Prize image section below, and the photo at least had the hands clearly visible, so I don't have much of an objection to that image anymore. Now back to your image, if you are autistic and are indeed stimming in the image you added, I won't object to the image being re-added if the caption gets revised to include the word "stim"/"stimming" and maybe with a bit of an explanation of this stim, since "playing with cold water in the kitchen sink" isn't particular to autistic people/stimming. Some1 (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Another question

Would this photo also be an example of stimming, or is that something different? Maybe everyone's stims are completely different, such that to each of us others' habits seem as strange as they do to neurotypicals. Thanks, —Soap— 20:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I didnt think to check until just now, but I note now that that image is listed as part of the stimming category at Commons. —Soap— 20:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't view this as an example of stimming. Stimming usually has a sensory and a repetitive component. One could argue that lining up items can be visually pleasing but I don't believe that's the main motivation for most persons who do that.--TempusTacet (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Stimming in ADHD

Adding a section to this article to talk about stimming with ADHD Nicholasferg (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

difficult to suppress

the article currently says

As it serves the purpose of self-regulation and is mostly done subconsciously, stimming is difficult to suppress.

I think I added the words for others to this sentence at one point, and another editor recently removed it. Since I cant find anything that would support either sentence in the reference linked (the word "stimming" only appears once and just gives a definition), Im not sure what to do. I think the article is clearly talking about caregivers suppressing autistic patients' stimming, so i stand by my wanting the words "for others" in the sentence, but it's not really on solid ground with this reference. —Soap— 10:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding your point here but adding "for others" doesn't really fit in my opinion. Adding in "it is difficult for others to suppress stimming" implies that other people are stopping people from stimming (like forcecably holding someone still etc.) while the statement "it is difficult to supress stimming" applies to any context where stimming is supressed, done by others or oneself. I think this makes more sense since stimming can be supressed by an the person stimming as well, adding for others neglects that possibility. On kind of a side note the referance Kapp, Steven K; Steward, Robyn; Crane, Laura; Elliott, Daisy; Elphick, Chris; Pellicano, Elizabeth; Russell, Ginny (2019-02-28). "'People should be allowed to do what they like': Autistic adults' views and experiences of stimming". Autism. 23 (7). SAGE Publications: 1782–1792. doi:10.1177/1362361319829628. ISSN 1362-3613. would probably fit this statment better. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)