slatestarcodex autism

What led me to ask this is stories of people who were deaf from birth whod get cochlear implants as adults. You dont need a tower-and-foundation model to explain how both higher than usual prevalence of intelligence-associated genes in autistic individuals and extremely intelligent non-autistic people. There are ways to reduce the loop gain of the system to increase the maximum gain before feedback, but ultimately they involve careful sound engineering theres no general parameter you can turn down to fix the problem, because the primary parameter you _want_ is the same one that causes the breakdown. It stands to reason that f can be very intractable, and resolving that function is the difficult question where there is science to be done. My outside view intuition is that gut bacteria are the new priming and also literally HTTLPR. More, by that point your identity probably includes significant aspects which make the idea of becoming normal and predictable less personally palatable. It would be an excellent skill for a teacher. >They are being positively selected, ie increasing with every generation, presumably because people with the genes are having more children than people without them. This model predicts something I believe is true many low functioning autistic people have real talents lurking in there, it is just really hard for them or others to access those talents because of all the broken stuff. Theres one other possible source of systematic bias in the data: living and available parents, especially fathers. The optimal value is at 10.0 (for example). Its similar with hearing. Epistemic status: wild speculation backed up only by anecdotal evidence and theory. There are no other cases of autism diagnosed in the immediate family. I view it as absolutely crucial that bright kids get to socialize with kids like them, and also that someone teaches them how to be a functional person. I dont have time to go through all the links this morning but wanted to add some more studies. Immune systems that greet pathogens with a really forceful response on a hair trigger. I dont think cystic fibrosis works that way. SYNPSH Company Profile | CROIX, HAUTS DE FRANCE, France | Competitors Given that many drugs both medical and recreational appear to affect similarly subtle parameters broadly through relatively simple molecules, theres no reason to assume they cant be much more specifically fine-tuned through genetics. Today, he weighs about 195. Shes a real handful to deal with and that deters quality men from being interested in her. If youre trying to compare the IQs of parents and children, you need to have both the parents and children, and be sure that the parents are in fact the parents of the children in question. But it adds the concept of a "safe starch" - where the classic paleo diet has a zero tolerance policy toward carbohydrates, the Perfect Health Diet allows certain carbs like rice, potatoes, and lots of weird things like "taro" and "sago". If we take the Ronemus and Gardner studies seriously, the answer seems to be yes. And, being a fairly intelligent person himself, he agreed that it didnt make much sense, but it didnt change that fact that he was able to overpower equally muscular people through sheer force in the ring. Perhaps it will help if I ask a question. Is it the reverse of that? I would hypothesize based on this that autistic people usually have parents who are very good at exactly those areas that they have trouble in. Guys autism is not a thing. Several studies have shown a genetic link between autism and intelligence; genes that contribute to autism risk also contribute to high IQ. One just needs to consider a model where a brain is a complicated object whose organization and function depends on changes in the genetic blueprint in non-monotonic ways, and it is likely that all combinations (attainable via sexual reproduction) of genes that are beneficial alone or in some particular arrangements are not even more beneficial together; some of the potential arrangements are bound to be non-optimal or even catastrophic. Knowing how much of the genetic variance in intelligence (say IQ for an easy measure) is additive is probably good enough to figure out how off the purely linear assumption is. Maintaining or constructing rigorous social boundaries would be the only thing that would protect a human with IQ300 from a human with IQ400 (or a seed AI). . I am known as a word smith (and its an important part of my career, but Im not in journalism). I think an important possibility to consider is that some or all of the correlation were observing is simply due to bias in the data were using, rather than any actual relationship between high IQ and autism. But if you want to redefine incredible to mean the top 0.1 percent of the population, then yes, Bugmasters guess would be roughly accurate: Thered be approximately 1,250 people who were both incredibly smart and incredibly charismatic in the Western world, or maybe 1,500-2,000 if you assume a minor positive correlation between being intelligence and being socially adept. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-06/humanity-keeps-getting-smarter. These three buckets and a few other less important factors combine to determine autism risk for any individual. Most are weird in the sense of having uncommon interests (reading history or science books or studying languages for fun, say), but most seem pretty normal in terms of personality and affect and such. They all share the same hunger for mathematics, and if you get to know those who seem normal on the surface, you find out that they have some interesting hobbies as well. Intelligence and social aptitude dont seem to be positively correlated, at least not very strongly, but theyre definitely not negatively correlated. Big muscles can also reduce range of motion. This is interesting to me, since I am on a career path to become a high end career civil servant, GS-12 at 25 years old for those that know what that means, and I am anything but normal. They've also got a blog about what they're doing here. too many CAG repeats and the area destabilizes and you get runaway anticipation that wipes out later generations of your family. Some vaguely similar term like high functioning autism would be used. This has held me back at networking events, but overall, there is some tolerance for being abnormal out of the office. Lets say for example that parameter A is the learning rate in the part of the brain that deals with reasoning. Being able to observe a large variety of children with autism (due to activities at the charter school), I agree that autism is a very strange catch-all with many different types of children diagnosed. (For example, a too-big head would kill mother and baby until modern times; now it just means mom gets a C-section.). If Im not, that suggests one of three things: Get the latest business insights from Dun & Bradstreet. The difference between high and low functioning autistic children is significant. Moreover, if your family isnt too bright, you might not even recognize that theres something funny about your latest kid. [Thanks to Marco DG for proofreading and offering suggestions]. This should be surprising; why would too many intelligence-promoting variants cause a syndrome marked by low intelligence? That figure seems very low to me, though it depends what exactly you define as incredibly smart and incredibly charismatic. If we take incredibly to be synonymous with top percentile, there would be 75 million people in the world who are incredibly intelligent. could equally be applied to people who arent especially intelligent. Judith Harris discusses this in one of her books. This is a great post. Im really curious, how many people identify with this statement? As I understand it (Im an interested amateur, not an expert, so dont trust this too far! But quickly selected out of the gene pool doesnt help the individual person who got one of them, who tends to end up severely disabled. Theres a range for this parameter, selection in the past has left most of the population too low, but if you push the parameter up too high things will break. This is Crespi 2016, Autism As A Disorder Of High Intelligence. If you get a high intelligence person who is smart enough to create a game-changing technology for example, militarized AI or super-forecasting technology then they dont need to get along with low-intelligence people: instead, low-intelligence people need to get along with them. Ive heard stories of autistic children sometimes regressing in development around 2 years old, e.g. Pretending that people with autism diagnoses are typical of people with autism is useful when trying to treat the symptoms of autism; but ignoring less symptomatic people results in ineffective studies when trying to figure out causes and effects. And how come its so inconsistent, and many people have naturally high intelligence but arent autistic at all? There simply haven't been any large, decent-quality studies showing that children in ABA show significant improvements over children not in ABA. What are the percentages of children who fall in each group? If you're interested in this, consider taking their Pledge as a formal and public declaration of intent. in particle physics at age 15, millionaire at age 30 type of stuff. The normies were not spergs running emulations, theyd have the same confused look whenever we sperged-out about something that we had when they talked about sportsball. Rare de novo mutations, ie the autistic child gets a new mutation that their non-autistic parent doesnt have. control children (though see the discussion here) for some debate over how seriously to take this; I am less sure this is accurate than most of the other statistics mentioned here. The military is where the fun toys are all at! To some extent, incompatible advantages can stack by affecting entirely different things (one runner with salutary mutations affecting his legs, his lungs, and his adrenal gland) But to some extent they cant. That should give us more geniuses, but not a shift in the distribution where now we get a Gauss/von Neumann/Newton/Kant/Einstein born in every town. If it is, that could explain some of these results. > (which are around 80% to 90%; the authors are embarrassed by this, and in a later study suggest they might just have been bad at determining who in their sample did or didnt have autism. Yes, I was thinking something very similar: Broadly speaking, its pretty clear that intelligence differeces come from differences in brain structure or organization, macroscopic and/or microscopic. My wife is dyslexic; Im not. The Economist More evidence that autism is linked to gut bacteria. Slate Star Codex, which sprung up in 2013, helped her develop a "calibrated trust" in the medical system. But its frankly unclear who it is talking about. I would argue the same standardization that has raised IQ generally actually de-selects for geniuses in many caseswe spend a lot of time getting people to think and act a certain way and behave efficiently etc. how could they recruit in such a way as to get a representative sample? It would be interesting to see more fine-grained dependency between autism and IQ, i.e. Question the first. Score: If were gonna sit down and make Smores, we need marshmallows, chocolate, graham crackers, and a crackling fire. For example, in World War I, we saw an increase in head injuries after we started giving soldiers helmets but the reason wasnt that soldiers wearing helmets were more likely to get injured, but because previously, the injuries to their head simply would have killed them and they would have been marked as dead, not as having head injuries. I dont think its quite that and even if it were, it would be really mysterious if double sickle cell genes caused more malaria! For example, they are not extremely aggressive, but tend to be gentle individuals. German Shepherds, Huskies). These questions interest me because I know a lot of people who are bright nerdy programmers married to other bright nerdy programmers, and sometimes they ask me if their children are at higher risk for autism. Ive met a couple AMAB people identifying as genderqueer, but at least an order of magnitude more AFAB ones. Also, if anything, it would be self-control thats being selected against by modern reproductive behaviors, not intelligence. Most of these seem to be related to social ability. There are different levels of the concept we call perfect pitch. Gifted children dont always have gifted families, though. But African slaves survived. the genetic load would be due to bad luck in parent mixing (recessive-recessive pairs) and parent age. But you know what really has provided a massive survival advantage over the last few millenia of people clumping up together in cities? The familial genes mentioned above: common genes that increase IQ and that evolution positively selects for. The other two options I guess take effort, but Id say its effort that they enjoy putting in, because they enjoy the rewards (friendship, novel socializing, etc.). (And, just to acknowledge what I suspect was the subtext of this entire post, thats really bad news for people who want to get significant IQ gains from genetic engineering.).

Justin Name Puns, Articles S