anbuend wrote:
Yeah I've often assumed that whatever autism is (for whichever person in question), it's like a seed. And depending on the conditions the seed is planted in and grows in, the tree it grows into can look entirely different (sometimes like entirely different species to an untrained observer). Imperfect analogy, but I don't know a better one. I also suspect there are people with the "autistic seed" who barely look autistic at all and would never in a million years get diagnosed or suspected, simply because their particular shape of "tree" has never been part of the outward descriptions of autism that prevail in the literature.
Interesting and accurate analogy! Seed=Gene(s)! The basic rules for all types of genes is that some of them are expressed in certain circumstances (seemingly random)
An Aspie/Autistic clearly has autistic genes. But also, a person can be a carrier of the gene(s), but not express them and be NT.
I have read about autistic identical twin studies (for practical purposes they are clones!
100% Genetically identical!). In 90% of cases if one twin is on the spectrum, the other will be as well. The interesting thing is that in
10% of the cases (Again,
100% Genetically identical!) the same autism gene(s) that placed their identical twin on the spectrum were either on or off at the appropriate time to develop into an NT!
Why? No one can answer that one precisely. But the best explanation that I can give is that
there is an element of randomness to genetics since in the above case both twins originated from the same sperm/egg embryo.
As to the original poster, my answer is probably. But as with the above example there is no 100% guarantee one way or the other.
Source: I am an Aspie, and about 1 year away from finishing my PhD in cell biology/neuroscience. Hope to be a post doc studying autistic mice brains after I graduate!