One way of resolving the autism-intelligence paradox is to say that familial genes for autism increase IQ, but de novo mutations and environmental insults decrease IQ. Maybe this is old news to most people, so I wont belabor that point any more, but what about the link between high IQ and a different immune function? Autism (especially Asperger's) is basically a vanity diagnosis these days. Agree with your post, and especially with this part. If I suggest autism is effectively what we call people whose mental resolution (in the sense of pixels per inch) is too high, would that make sense to you? While autism (and Asperger) has a lot of symptoms, there is one thing I noticed early on: people on the spectrum tend to take words very literally. Being extroverted and popular is one of the biggest predictors of success and longevity, probably more important than IQ frankly although I dont have the studies in front of me. Any gene that increases A in a normal human makes that human more intelligent by pushing A closer to 10. When she was three, she had symptoms of autism. Also, if anything, it would be self-control thats being selected against by modern reproductive behaviors, not intelligence. https://medicine.uiowa.edu/psychiatry/content/ui-research-suggests-huntingtons-disease-gene-also-vital-human-development-and-intelligence. One big category would be selection bias due to diagnosis bias. Like everyone else, they find autism risk genes are positively correlated with years of schooling completed, college completion, and IQ. Isnt autism a bit more sensitive to increased parental age than many other mental disorders? Well, much debate here gets into the distinction between people with high functioning autism and Aspergers, due to a muddling at that end of the scale. I have no family history of autism. GS-14 speaking, and Im not exactly normal either. As for genetics, well, my IQ is ~135, and my wifes is right there with me (~125). Get the latest business insights from Dun & Bradstreet. Judith Harris discusses this in one of her books. The high end should stay the same, in much the way that the high end of human lifespan is only a little longer now than in 1800its just that a lot more people make it to 90 or 100 with modern medical care. Other possible explanation(s): Some kind of anxiety about doing things wrong, combined with worrying about whether one is supposed to be able to do a thing yet. This has nothing to do with the OP, but I will definitely comment on your wrestling example, as a wrestler. And of course theres always survivor bias. People at the higher end of the corporate ladder that Ive met were very intelligent and also seemed generally normal, though of course they had much higher-than-normal ambition, stamina, and interest in their business. There was a Conversations With Tyler podcast with Michelle Dawson (link here including transcript) where this was discussed. Or it means that subgroup is relatively small and thus has not been studied yet. FWIW, anecdata in the autistic communit suggests that autistic people are more likely than average to be genderqueer in some fashion, but theres no anecdata correlating this with chromosomal sex i.e. I believe autism is largely genetic and the genes that are associated with autism mainly perform functional roles in brain development and brain function. To test this, you could see if higher IQ autistic people tend to have more or fewer of these genes correlated with high intelligence, compared to low IQ autistic people. An analogy: Imagine you have a sound system with a microphone, speakers, and a mixing board. (Although, arent gene-behavior connections in general pretty suspect, as per your previous post?) This can best be understood through a tower-versus-foundation model where higher intelligence that outstrips the ability of some mysterious foundation to support it will result in autism (25% confidence), 6. And also reproducing younger (banking frozen eggs and/or sperm early for the IVF). This post is missing a discussion of the changing meaning of autism. And yes, I know the survey showed that the average SSC reader had an IQ of 138, but Im extremely skeptical of that finding too. This would also neatly explain how a primarily genetic disease is becoming more prevalent people were always producing autistic children, they just werent surviving before. Well, in my case it was a single person who did both. And rich people, on average, receive better medical care particularly rich white people. First impression on reading this, apart from excellent post, thank you!: it sounds like it could be something where each contributing factor individually increases intelligence a bit, but if you go over a certain limit then it tips over and you end up with lower intelligence again. 5. As for my own personal experience, Ive found that people with high conceptual intelligence (as opposed to mathematical intelligence) tend to be more charismatic. There are so many ways to be weird and out of touch with the people around you, related to very different sets of issues and characteristics. Perhaps different people train their brain using different optimization strategies, and when you optimize too well you risk ending up in the autistic basin of configuration space, which does well in the environment a fetus or baby faces. More, you have probably already settled into an existence that minimizes their importance to you by the time you have enough information to piece together the importance of predictability. One possibility would be something like a tower-vs-foundation model. I imagine the effort you put into fitting in goes down as you get older. The latter are the Feynman types: Goofballs with a myriad of weird interests (Feynman was into playing the Bongo drums and the short lifed Soviet Republic Tannu Tuva, among other things). Posted on June 15, 2020 by Scott Alexander. Slate Star Codex Assortative Mating And Autism Posted on January 28, 2020 by Scott Alexander Introduction Assortative mating is when similar people marry and have children. And it would also explain why there are many extremely intelligent people who dont have autism at all (you can build arbitrarily tall towers if your foundation is strong enough). i do wish you wouldnt use the phrase autism risk. About impulse control, there are two strategies being selected for here, one featuring low impulse control(the classic idiocracy strategy) and another (the religious socially conservative strategy) featuring high impulse control: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X18300976. Hrm. For each parameters, there are many alleles in different locations that can bump the parameters a certain directionmake the babys head[1] a little bigger, for example. Lazy googling yields claims around 80% narrow-sense (additive) heritability for height which is comparable to the total heritability of IQ. After further consideration, Im unaware of any phenomenon which would correspond to a low-function, low-intelligence version. Autism-risk genes may just be plumping up the middle tiers, those who are noticeably intelligent but not staggering one-in-a-million test cases. One possible explanation is simply that autistic children born to poor parents/less intelligent parents/disadvantaged minorities are simply more likely to die in infancy/early childhood and thus never be diagnosed as being autistic to begin with. Another, potentially related, possibility is that we are disproportionately likely to diagnose white kids with autism rather than other forms of mental disability. n=1, but it was striking to watch my very smart middle kid go from being a near-outcast in his good Catholic school to a guy with lots of friends at his magnet school. Is there precedent for this tower-versus-foundation model being useful for any other health issue, or was it just made up specifically for autism? I still sometimes feel bad about whether that ended up slightly ruining some sort of investigation into which methods of teaching spelling were better or something like that. You dont need to be an absolute dictator or god-king to be able to ignore social norms all you need is lots of money. the non-verbal. For such individuals, perfect pitch is almost always the indicator that highly refined processing is available in these areas of immediate reception of sound. Overall I would be surprised if this were the real explanation for the autism-and-intelligence paradox, but it gets an A for effort. Given the problems measuring IQ in autistic people (spiky profiles, huge differences between ravens vs. weschler) its also possible that intellectual disabilities are overreported at 15%. Interestingly, this one addresses the P>V, and V>P subtypes and suggests: children with ASD did not show the commonly understood characteristic profile on the WISC either in terms of PIQ-VIQ discrepancy or in terms of peak skills on particular WISC subtests. Because they lacked the development of the auditory processing, it was very draining for them because it mostly came across as a large amount of noise. Research suggests that there is an ongoing reversed Flynn effect, i.e. > (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. What videogames do you play? : slatestarcodex Well, I think its certainly a reasonable possibility, which in my experience appears to be true, that beyond a certain point, intelligence either directly causes weirdness or is reliant upon it as a foundation. The tower model looks close to my personal model, which has absolutely no experimental testing besides how the two of us feel about itbut generally I call it the Smore model. Its hard to pin down why this is the case, but I think it is related to the things above, but also to the fact that gifted people tend to be bad at copying other people instinctively. It draws on the VPR model of intelligence, where g (general intelligence) is divided into three subtraits, v (verbal intelligence), p (perceptual intelligence), and r (mental rotation ability) despite the very specific names each of these represents ability at broad categories of cognitive tasks. You underestimate the potential of a good emulation, I think. The Waterhouse study I linked above (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40489-016-0085-x.pdf) argues that even before the autism-aspergers lumping made things worse, ASD samples within single studies (let alone meta-analyses) were not useful for scientific inference because the autism diagnosis lumps together so many wildly disparate developmental and social issues. If missing, intelligence develops a lot less/later/incompletely? They would more easily get high IQ amongst Aspies, whom I dont consider Autistic. 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. Genes are not something where you can say, this is good, more of it will be better. I was a bit of an outlier in my family, and didnt really find a peer group I fitted in with until university. Someone at the 90th percentile of weight back then weighed about 185 lbs; today, he would weigh 320 lbs. Its possible some degree of politics was involved in this decision: The World Health Organization also is eliminating Asperger syndrome from its International Classification of Diseases. Its not because simply being small or being large or having a flat face are inherently unhealthy traits; there are other species that are much smaller than Yorkies, much larger than Great Danes, and have flatter faces than Pugs, without suffering any problems as a result. the classic stereotype.). 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). Could you elaborate? They may also have eccentric opinions or interests but theyre more likely to pursue them obsessively or compulsively without good reason, and they have trouble with self-awareness and awareness of others. Most genuinely intelligent people are also fairly charismatic. paternal IQ/ autism seems pretty much decorrelated, which is strange given the 100% confidence that autism genes are IQ boosting. Normal includes insecurities, anxieties, caring what other people think. 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. What are the percentages of children who fall in each group? The existence of a well-defined subset of low IQ people whose relatives have higher-than-predicted IQs is a surprising finding that cuts through the measurement difficulties and suggests that this is a real phenomenon. However, if too many such genes coincide in the same individual, then A exceeds its optimum of 10. Or the dad may have left or tuned out because he couldnt handle the situation (but could have handled a socially inept kid who wont shut up about WWI airplane models). I was thinking of Sickle Cell Anemia, where if you get the gene from one parent you are immune to malaria, while if you get from both, your blood cant carry enough oxygen. Suppose the only study on age-related mortality shows that people older than 30 are 1.2x more likely to die in a given year than people younger than 30, but does not give any other information. ), but the non-additive portion is of roughly comparable size. That sounds like the Flynn effect, although the Flynn effect generally isnt considered genetic. I also need alternative means to handle a wide variety of learning and perceptual tasks. The optimal value is at 10.0 (for example). Doing some [fundamental] discovery is harder and harder. Some might get lucky and be able to manage the negatives from such unusual prior models away by the effects of other quirks, say having abstract thoughts feel more natural through some particular tweaks making the net their active inference casts wider with higher error tolerance or by lowering the interconnectivity between different oversensitive mental modules that they dont interfere with one another as much or whatnot then you get high-functioning autistic individuals, maybe Newtons one cliched example of that sort of configuration. Also, if we do get to a bold new future of hyper-intelligent unilaterism, would the hyper-intelligent even want to sign up for it? r/slatestarcodex - Autism, rationality and intelligence So in that sense, maybe its just a phrasing problem. For all his skepticism in some areas, Scott is remarkably accepting of the overall conceptual framework of psychiatric and psychological diagnosis despite its glaring philosophical flaws, which have been pointed out by many (see e.g. unsurprisingly, ID is inversely correlated with IQ; ADHD also shows a strong inverse correlation with IQ. If Ronemus isnt missing some obscure de novo mutations, then people who get autism solely by accumulation of common (usually IQ-promoting) variants still end up less intelligent than average.
Triple Crown Softball World Series 2022,
Rob Kalin Net Worth,
Articles S