Is autism a disorder caused by high IQ genes?

Post Reply New Topic

In the last several million years there has been so much natural selection for high intelligence that brain size has roughly tripled. Because high intelligence is so important to surviving and adapting to the environment, almost any gene that increased intelligence would be selected for, even if that gene was so associated with certain diseases. We see this trend especially in the Ashkenazi Jewish population who had to be unusually intelligent to survive antisemitism in mideval Europe. As a result, many genetic diseases especially neurological diseases occur at very high rates among Ashkenazi Jews because the genes that cause those diseases also cause high IQ which was essential for survival.

I'm wondering if a similar phenomena may explain autism. Although autistics have lower IQ (on AVERAGE) they have many traits that are associated with genius IQ in neurotypicals: large head circumference, early reading, spectacular talents, interest in intellectual subjects. Further many autistics seem to come from parents in very high IQ occupations: computer programming, engineering, physics etc.

So my theory is that whatever genes cause autism, cause high IQ in the neurotypicals relatives of autistics, and that's why genes for autism still exist despite their lack of Darwinian fitness. Autism is just the price humans pay for evolving such large intelligent brains.

Large heads do not confer high intelligence, that idea went out the window with craniolog(I think). As for your actual question it's happening to everyone I'm afraid, survival of the fittest no longer exists so evolution is going to run rampant. I'm not even sure if we'll continue to develop intellectually. Autism may be a side effect of this but there is nothing conclusive.

Actually large head size is significantly correlated with high intelligence (at least in neurotypicals). This has been documented in dozens of studies. Now with MRI measuring brain size directly, we see an even stronger correlation with IQ.

Survival of the fittest no longer exists in developed countries, but there's a lot more high IQ people getting married to one another and having kids in places like silicon valley. 2 high IQ parents might both possess the same recessive brain genes and thus have autistic kids. This probably explains the rise in autism over the last quarter century.

The "rise" in autism is caused by the expanded criteria for autism.

And I don't believe that IQ = intelligence.

IQ = IQ.

"Intelligence" is a social construct that varies depending on who you ask; therefore, there are no "intelligence genes," only genes associated with various skills and abilities that may or may not be considered "intelligence."

Next question.

Buddah, technically you are right that there isn't a strong correlation between cranial capacity and intelligence. Otherwise, cattle would be much smarter than we are. But there is a very strong correlation between intelligence and brain-to-body weight ratios. In other words, more brain to body weight does connote higher intelligence, as in number of ounces of brain to pounds of body.

As far as evolution goes, there is a book that makes a compelling argument that humans have increased the rate of evolution by approximately a hundred-fold as compared to pre-human times. You are right though that dysgenic policies have become the norm in modern Western societies. Here is the book if you are interested:

http://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosio ... -1-catcorr

The answer to Wobagoo's question is problematic. My understanding is that AS is more accurately characterized by uneven abilities than by high abilities. Most aspies are very good at a few things, but barely functional at doing other things. For example, I know the kind of thing I'm discussing here like the back of my hand; I am doing here what I am gifted at doing. But yesterday, I set up a trap for feral hogs. It took me four hours and I still managed to bungle it. I could've gotten somebody out here with an eighty IQ who could've set up a half dozen traps properly in the time it took me to set up one improperly.

It is also the case that there are extremely intelligent people with no trace of AS. Regardless of what you may think of his politics, Bill Clinton comes to mind.

You are factually correct when you note that there are different types of intelligence. All you have to do is listen to the inane political pronouncements of some of our most gifted actors and musicians to see this.

But intelligence--what the psychometricians call "g"--is a very specific characteristic. G is defined as the ability to entertain and manipulate abstractions.

The idea that we we're all absolutely equal and identical in every way is an old Marxist myth that fortunately is starting to fall out of favor. The fact of the matter is that while there are lots of commonalities, each of us is unique and different. It's one of the reasons Marxism failed; it dehumanizes us.

No.

All you're doing is arbitrarily defining various traits and abilities that you personally think of as "intelligence." Your "specific characteristic" was arbitrarily defined by people who personally felt that this "g" represented what they wanted "intelligence" to be.

There's no objective reason why I should consider "g" to be "intelligence" anymore than I should consider "x" or "y" or "z" to be "intelligence." It's a vague, pointless abstraction.



I never said we were all "equal."

"Survival of the fittest" is not a mandate. You're also wrong - it still happens, the definition of "fit" has expanded due to modern technology. All this means is that those who are most adapted to their environment survive to breed, and their genes are successful. The environment can be harsh or it can be forgiving. Humans currently live in a forgiving environment, but we are also basically the planet's apex predators.

Evolution is still working exactly the same way it always has. Those who survive and have children pass along their DNA, those who do not have children for whatever reason do not. There's no crisis in which humanity will cease to develop intellectually, that's just so much elitist pablum and idiocracy is not a documentary. People who survive to have children who would not otherwise are not, generally speaking, outside the normal range of human intelligence. Also, many of those who can survive do not go on to have children for whatever reason. Speaking as someone who came near to death at birth and survived due to what amounted to heroic medical efforts, I am also not going to bemoan the advances that enable people to survive previously lethal conditions or situations.

From what I've generally come to understand....

"Evolution" is the theory that explains how the various species of plants and animals came to exist.

"Natural selection" is the theory that addresses how certain traits are selected for, or selected against.

People confuse "evolution" with "natural selection" all the time.

Anyway, in terms of "natural selection," the concept of what constitutes "the fittest" is subjective and depends entirely on the environment. There is no objective, over-arching standard for what traits are "the fittest." All that nature requires is that we survive long enough to pass on our genes; nature does not care about physical strength or "intelligence." If a weak, stupid animal manages to mate and produce offspring, then that animal is "fit." Charles Fort joked that the concept of "survival of the fittest" can be summed up by saying "survivors survive."

If a single mother, with an IQ of 70, who is on welfare and food stamps, manages to have ten children, then she has adapted to our MODERN environment and is "fit" to survive. If you disapprove of the traits that our modern environment allow to survive, then it is a reflection of your prejudice, not of a failure of "evolution." Evolution does not have opinions on which traits are "fittest," only humans do.

"Survival of the fittest" = "survivors survive."

I wish people would stop anthropomorphizing nature.

Last edited by XFilesGeek on 31 Dec 2011, 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"No.

"All you're doing is arbitrarily defining various traits and abilities that you personally think of as "intelligence." Your "specific characteristic" was arbitrarily defined by people who personally felt that this "g" represented what they wanted "intelligence" to be."

You're right. I suppose only The Enlightened, such as yourself, can really understand such things. The rest of us only have "opinions".

I never said we were all "equal."

Tell me, do you click your heels together three times when you create your own reality? All I can do is read the best literature I can find and analyze it critically. It must be nice not to have to do this. It's a lot of work.

Seriously, if I were you, I'd stick with the hyperreality of TV. You're embarrassing yourself.

You'd think autism being caused by high IQ might be a "good" thing.

The survival of the fittest routine still resonates with alot of people. Why else would there be this pick on the weak for? Why else would people laugh when reading about autistic boy shoved into duffel bag? It's prejudism and the media has done it's fair share of painting a picture.

If the survival of the fittest routine were not still in effect. Why does Judge Rotenberg center still operate?

My parents were not scientists or programmers but they ended up having kids that were bright in those areas or gifted with artwork and music.

My ancestors however were scientists, politicians, actors, poets, artists.

Why is there this big focus and obsession with autistics? It just comes across as attempting to bully people society views of as weak. Why is there never any real focus on dangerous psychopaths?

Down syndrome has prenatal screening. How many are aborted?

Autism is on the chopping block.

What comes next?

I can guarantee you psychopaths and narcissists will never be in this situation because the ones performing these operations love those two groups the most. Our world after you kill those you consider "weak" will be full of Jim Jones, Charles Mansons, Cunning CEOs and frankly you'lll have nobody else to bully so you'll have to pick on someone your own size.

Will you decide black people suck after all and kill them all? There is still a silent survival of the fittest. Those running the show aren't all that mentally sound and perhaps they are projecting their own self hatred in a misguided manner.

How long did it take to phase out sterilizations without people's consent??

Can you imagine the future of Narcissist vs. Narcissist. Psycho vs psycho?

That is what is going to happen when you raise the alarms for this genetic chopping block.

Not all autistics cower. You're staring at the text of an autistic that was raised a fighter.

Last edited by TheygoMew on 31 Dec 2011, 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"From what I've generally come to understand....

"Evolution" is the theory that explains how the various species of plants and animals came to exist.

"Natural selection" is the theory that addresses how certain traits are selected for, or selected against.

"People confuse "evolution" with "natural selection" all the time."

For those who would rather subscribe to reality over hyperreality, evolution denotes slow change (revolution denotes rapid change). Natural selection is one of the mechanisms of Darwinian micro and macro evolution.

Everyone only has "opinions" when it comes to arbitrarily defining abstract concepts.

Can you give me an objective reason why "g" is "intelligence," but "x" is not "intelligence?" You've arbitrarily described various cognitive skills and abilities and chosen to call them "intelligence" while arbitrarily excluding other skills and abilities from your definition of "intelligence."



Asserting your opinions as "fact" generally doesn't take much work. Nor does asserting the opinions of others as "fact."



......says the guy who immediately starts throwing insults and condescension as soon as his opinions are challenged.

Which is what I said, but thanks for reiterating.

"Everyone only has "opinions" when it comes to arbitrarily defining abstract concepts."

Really? So, if you were to declare two plus two to equal five, would that be the case? There is no greater abstraction than mathematics.

As far as the rest of your comments go, not all of us subscribe to postmodernism or its hyperreality. If I subscribed to your contention that all any of us have is opinions about abstractions, then I would change my "opinions" about aerodynamics (which are part of the abstraction we call science) and fly myself to the moon.

Listen, I'm trying to disabuse you of your postmodernist ways. But I can see I really might as well try to fly myself to the moon. Unless you can do better, this conversation is at an end.

Genes aren't selected for purely because of their degree of "intelligence".