Is autism a disorder caused by high IQ genes?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think you understand what I mean when I said "survival of the fittest". I mean evolution as it works outside of human society, the way the stronger lions survive and pass their strong genetic traits on and the weak die as they were not as well equipped to survive. This is not the case in human society as our advanced medical developments let almost anyone survive, if the strong and the weak as well as the strong can survive and pass on their genes this effectively cancels out evolution. I'm sure geneticists minds are reeling over where this path leads humanity but one things for sure, it's hairless, small and in all likelyhood, will have gross vestigial eyes.

We discovered fire. Humans did. Discovered how to cook meat. Added protein, brain development and added energy to come up with new inventions. The wheel is still used to this very day. Great invention.

New foods harvested once we had energy.

If you look at now you will see that places that do not have as much food as other places the people have less energy and willpower.

If we never discovered fire, cooked our food which led to other foods as an alternative if you are opposed to eating meats for your protein, where would we be at now?

Also, I still don't think people with aspergers have below average IQ. By two points? Normal IQ is 100. Most aspies I've met score well above 100.

Also, I don't think I am some "PRICE OTHERS HAVE TO PAY" just for existing.

Why is dumbing down the population suddenly the greatest idea of all and if you don't fit that criteria then you're going to have a tougher life when being brilliant at one point in time instead of some overinflated ego was deemed important?

This is all revolving around fads. Those that are truly feeble minded go along with the program. Those that are intelligent examine the program and it's internal errors.

This program is flawed.

I am currently examining the fake it to make it design. Have the concept down but not the application. Oneday, you may see me in your ranks and never know it.

Also, there is no objective reason to call to this animal (link) a "cat" and to this animal (link) a seal. We can perfectly call other names to these creatures (like "gato" or "foca"...).

However, there exists a thing that is " the ability to entertain and manipulate abstractions" and that thing is strongly correlated with IQ; you can call that thing "intelligence" or any other name, but that is simply a semantic problem.

I'm not familiar with your example but this is how I would evaluate it from your data.
The population you cite went through a population bottleneck and was isolated due to religious beliefs. That resulted in a smaller gene pool, which means the population has a higher incidence of the traits you describe. It does not mean that the same genes are responsible for all of the traits. The only correlation you can assert is that their ancestor had this set of genetic traits.

As others in this thread have said, the real problem with your resulting theory is the bias you bring to it with the assumption that autism automatically brings a lack of fitness. You would be better served scientifically, and morally, to evaluate autism neutrally as a trait that is inherited and expressed to varying degrees in individuals. Then you can try to design a study that determines the fitness of autism.
*Keep in mind. Fitness in social animals does not mean that every individual has to have surviving offspring. One big advantage of social animals is that individuals wthout surviving offspring can contribute significantly to the survival of offspring in their group/lineage, thus indirectly insuring the survival of their genetic makeup.

I cannot accurately answer the poll as my father used to be in the sciences, but he is no longer. However, my maternal grandfather is a scientist, and most of my aunts and uncles on that side are also in tech or sciences.

Intelligience was not a major factor for natural selection in Europe, disease resistance (immunity to things such as the black plague, not freedom from genetic disorders) was the primary deciding factor in Europe. Intelligience is a more decisive factor in less social/civilized communities such as Paupa New Guinea.

Saying that the average autistic is of low intelligience is highly misleading, as IQ tests do not accurately measure intelligience among Autists, expecially those who are less verbal. If you look at more verbal Autists you will see that they do, in fact, have higher than average IQ. Also many of your traits of those with autism and those with high IQ are misleading as they more common among those with higher functioning autism, who do tend to have higher IQ. Finally saying that the NT relatives of those with Autism tend to have high IQ is also misleading, as chances are those relatives aren't actually fully NT.

I doubt high IQ genes cause Autism, though some autism genes might cause high IQ.

People anthropomorphize everything lol.

What? I don't see anything wrong with applying a familiar facial map to something to make it more relatable? Anthropormorphisism is great, without it there wouldn't be any furries or bronies! And we need furries and bronies.

Social animals. Social social social. Yap yap yap. Talk talk talk. Smile smile smile. Show your teeth. Charm.

Put a social animal in a corporation. One that does the talk but can't do the walk. Talk talk talk, yap yap yap, I'm great and I know this big shot personally! Person becomes a manager.

That socialpath then hooks their verbal claws into the ones who aren't talking alot because they are busy actually applying their knowledge to keep the corporation's systems running smoothly. So what do you get? A social predator blaming all their own mistakes on the person who knows what they are doing. If the person who knows what they are doing talks about their performance the socialpath will use their deception to try to convince others that person needs to be fired.

It may work, it may not. If it does work, the socialpath gains victory while the corporation suffers a loss and scrambles to find someone with the same knowledge and application skills. That new person comes in. The socialpath notices the person doesn't talk alot but actually does the job and does it well.

Manager breathing down that person's neck trying to get that person fired.

Eventually, the socialpath gets fired or the corporation catches on not to take the socialpath seriously and the socialpath is enraged and leaves.

This is relatively new. The whole, in order to get on top you must talk your way to the top. It has caused more disruptances in workplace environments and bullying which is counter productive on a business scale.

Add on top of that, the socialpath's beloved personality test which aims to weed out the non-talkers who don't have many friends like them!

It used to be, if you could show that you do a job and do it well, the company hired you and kept you.

HR used to have to use their own brains to determine if someone suited the job role well but because of these personality tests, alot of good employees are being tossed out. HR don't learn from their mistakes which limits their functions. You are always going to make mistakes with hiring but with these personality tests, it's designed to hire just socialpaths.

Social animals? That is code for...if you don't talk enough and aren't charming enough, you are not good enough for me!

Also, with this social animal BS there comes the people who talk ALOT but really have not much of anything important to say. Their social approach is limited based on what tv shows they watch, what new fad, what new fashion is cool...yay how in-depth!

Talk talk talk, just talk about anything, PLEASE KEEP TALKING, don't make me think, TALK DAMN YOU! KEEP YAPPING!! !! WEATHER, SPORTS, FASHION, CURRENT PSYCHOBABBLE RESEARCH!! AHHH DONT STOP TALKING!! ! Oh wait...you just mentioned your interest...how boring! You can stop talking now.

The actual body of research that exists indicate that parents of children with Autism have lower performance IQ's among other areas of IQ that have been tested in traditional IQ tests as compared to groups of parents tested with "normal" children or children with disabilities such as Down Syndrome.

(LINK)

It would be interesting to test the parents on fluid intelligence, to see if the same correlation exists with autistic children, but as far as I know that research has not been accomplished

Currently clusters of children that have been reported in high tech/high education areas in the US and abroad, have tested for significantly higher level of autism in children, however the autism that has been tested is type 1 autism, using statistics from pre-existing records from the school system for educational programs for the developmentally disabled.

There is no statistical indication whether or not the cases of higher functioning autism are increasing in these areas, because of the statistical methodology used.

In addition more recent research shows that awareness and access to a diagnosis is correlated to higher education levels, and specifically correlated to how close someone lives in the proximity of someone else who has children with autism, which makes for greater awareness.

Without awareness of the condition or access to a diagnosis, many cases are likely missed, in other areas of the country.

And, overall, higher functioning autism, particularly aspergers, to date, is not measured accurately, because of statistical methodology used. There is no indication one way or the other that levels of autism among the adults is diagnosed at higher rates in these tech rich areas, because currently there have been no studies done on those adults.

It is assumed they may have autistic traits, because it is a high tech area, but autistic traits don't necessarily mean that one would meet full criteria for an autism spectrum diagnosis.

Beyond this though, per example of the fluid intelligence measures, one could gain higher education levels in tech rich areas, because of potential advantage in fluid intelligence, while potentially lacking in other areas of traditional intelligence. Again, though, the parents haven't been measured or studied for fluid intelligence, so there is no way to know for sure if this is a factor or not.

One must remember when informal polls are done here, showing high levels of intelligence here, that there is a built in bias, for those select few out of approximately 1500 viewing the site at any given time that actually post.

It's more likely that those individuals with autism that happen to have higher intelligence levels, would be more comfortable with posting here than those with developmental disabilities or lower than average intelligence, particularly with the attention given to detail here, if someone uses incorrect grammar or incorrect spelling, by those "smart individuals" that post.

Per available research that has been done the only correlation that has been shown with an advantage of intelligence of individuals with autism over normal control groups, is the limited research available on fluid intelligence for those individuals with high functioning autism.

There is no correlation of IQ advantage in research for traditional IQ tests for parents of autistic children or children with autism, to date.

"Social animals? That is code for...if you don't talk enough and aren't charming enough, you are not good enough for me!"

That's certainly not what I was talking about. Social animals are just that... elephants and ants come to mind as well as humans.

No, this isn't true. While there is research to suggest that higher IQ translates to milder autism, that doesn't mean that it's possible to think around problems.

I am so tired of this particular argument that I am not even sure I want to get into it again. However, I tested as gifted in the first grade, and for some reason I wasn't able to simply solve my problems with intelligence. It's kind of hard to think your way around cognitive problems when the organ you use to think your way around problems is the same organ that is in fact impaired.

Also, "aspergoid" and "retardate" have to be two of the most ridiculous constructions I have ever seen.

Also, it's highly questionable that autistic IQs really tend to be so low as you seem to think as most seem to score within the normal range if given tests that they can actually do. I suspect the majority of those labeled as intellectually disabled are not, but are simply assumed to be on the basis of communication and adaptive skills.



I know exactly what you mean and my post was addressing it. Evolution doesn't stop, ever. Humanity's reached the point where we can adapt our environment to us, which has expanded the definition of who can survive and who cannot. I am sure most geneticists realize that evolution has neither telos nor mandate and realize where humanity ends up is not a morality play about the evils of technology. I am also sure that most geneticists have a more solid grounding in the concept of evolution and aren't leaping to bizarre conclusions just because more people survive now than ever did before.

Humanity is still evolving, all the time. It's a process, it doesn't stop. It simply shifts. Selection is a process, not a mandate. There's no law of nature that demands that some must die in order that other, stronger, worthier specimens may live and breed. You also seem to be confused to the point of "those who would have died really shouldn't be in the gene pool" but you have no coherent argument as to why this is, only something about how the strongest lions pass on their genes.

This is a fact: Whatever we do today, someday humanity will be extinct. There is no higher purpose, no sublime goal, no transcendence, no singularity that we are evolving toward. We don't have to prune our own species in order to simulate or stimulate evolution. We don't have to select those who are worthy of passing on their genes, and we don't have to deny compassion for the sake of a stronger species. The basis of your argument is what led to eugenics, and eugenics was a horrible mistake. And eugenics was practiced in the US and Canada. It was used against people with disabilities and poor people for the very same reasons you're using now. The arguments sound so deceptively rational, but are really all about deciding which kinds of humans are worthy of survival. And that is a really sh***y argument to make to people who may not meet your cut. As I said, I nearly died when I was born and medical science saved me. If it wasn't for the fact that people you don't consider fit to survive can be saved by medical science, I wouldn't be here to have this argument with you.

I agree with this.^^^
Eugenics was based on a misunderstanding/misapplication of evolution and was most likely motivated by power. The pseudo-science behind it was deeply flawed and ethically abhorrent.

Is aspergoid like hemerrhoid? I apologize for this post.

Neither of my parents are in scientific fields, my mum never finished high school (failing high school science) and my Dad did but couldn't pass maths.

There may be an IQ gene link of some kind but the IQ you end up with depends on so many other factors like early childhood intellectual stimulation, whether your mum smoke and drank when pregnant, early childhood illness and diet etc... that a link would be hard to prove I think.

Dinosaurs did it for me.

Regarding evolution and intelligence, that is.

I used to take it for granted that intelligence has evolutionary benefits. Then I read about the southern continent. Most dinosaur studies are in the north, with the Tyrannosaurs and constant change. But then they discovered even bigger meat eaters on the southern continent, but the biggest shock, to me, was that very little happened for fifty million years. They had these gigantic plant eaters with tiny brains and the brains did not get any bigger. Fifty million years! No species came along to challenge the big stupid guys. Maybe I'm not remembering everything right, but that really hit me.

As evolutionary advantages go, intelligence is probably not in the top five. If you look at the really successful species, the ones who dominated the world for millions of years, they were pretty stupid by our standards. If you look at the species that dominate the planet now, the insects and the nematodes, the ones who outnumber us by ridiculous numbers and we have very little power over, the ones who will thrive long after we have gone, individual intelligence does not feature highly. If you even look at successful humans, while intelligence matters, popularity matters more. Wealthy parents matter more. Where you are born matters more. Luck and hard work matter more. And this assumes that the successful smart people are really doing good for the species. So far our species is causing a mass extinction - it's too early to say whether we are successful.

Having said that, I spend most of my time thinking of philosophy and economics. I believe the potential is enormous. Al the world's problems can be solved by applying a little intelligence. I focus on it because it is the only tool I have. But solving problems is the easy part. Persuading the skeptical masses to recognize those solutions and act on them without messing up is much, much harder.

Sorry, what was the topic again?

Last edited by trappedinhell on 31 Dec 2011, 9:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think that the question poll is a bit illogical for the content of the post. If it was "Are are either of your biological parents in a math or science occupation?" it will make some sense, because maths and sciences are fields usually associated with high IQ; but why to include "tech" (I suppose that is short for "technical")? Afaik, "technical professions" don't have any particular association with high IQ; if anything, my impression is that high IQ people tend to prefer abstract-theoretical areas (e.g., philosophy) to technical areas.