Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Autism and Evolution

hms.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 91 posts

Re: Autism and Evolution

#61

Post by gertef »

azakai wrote: post #37
slantedview wrote: post #34

There have been instances of biological twins where one winds up with autism and another doesn't. So to the extent that autism has a genetic component - it is just that - a component.

That does support non-genetic factors to some extent, but the existence of such twins matters less than their frequency, because twins don't always have identical DNA (mutations can occur after they separate).

If autism is caused by an individual mutation (not alredy present in the parent genome) it would be amazing that the mutation is so common, but not currently of a known form (like trisomy).

Re: Autism and Evolution

#62

Post by gertef »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #23

I went the other way with it: high-functioning autism is a component of more-evolved humans. The autistics are more rational, often less selfish in my anecdotal experience, and cause almost no harm to others vs baseline. A world full of them would've largely eliminated famine, pollution, war, violent crime. It would be a fraction of what we see. Further, autistics and introverts are often behind many great advances t…

OTOH, a world full of people with autism might never be able to come together and build large group projects. Autism might work well for creating in the computer+Internet age (but I have doubts that non-autism traits are totally unnecessary), but much less likely to work in lower-tech society.

Re: Autism and Evolution

#63

Post by dsacco »

kmonsen wrote: post #43
scardine wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Families with one autistic child do have an increased risk of having a second child with the disorder. There are some evidence that hints to genetic factors. For example, we know that boys are at much higher risk than girls, but we don't know why. Similarly, we know that older parents are more likely to have autistic children—but again, we don't know why. See https://www.verywell.com/autism-4014759

This could just as well apply to environmental factors though, siblings probably share those. Also the boy/girl factor could be explained by different behaviors, so different exposures. Not saying I know anything about this, or that this is the case, just that the increased family risk and boy/girl risk doesn't mean it is genetics.

>>This could just as well apply to environmental factors though, siblings probably share those.

That's correct, but looking at concordance rates between monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (fraternal) twins demonstrates that there is at least a partial genetic connection.

Identical twins share the diagnosis in 77% of cases, while fraternal twins only share the diagnosis in 31% of cases.[1] Given that identical twins share more genetic material, the conclusion is that autism has a genetic component to its incidence.

That said, most research on the subject, including the paper I'm citing, establishes that there is most likely a dual nature-nurture component. In particular, this study was conducted on twins within the same household, so the genetic component would have been augmented by shared environmental factors.

[1]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4440679/

Re: Autism and Evolution

#64

Post by i14ng »

zerognowl wrote: post #55
cmiles74 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not seen any evidence that Asperger Syndrome or mild autism leads to well-paid occupations. For sure, there is some anecdotal evidence (which I find unconvincing), but I haven't come across anything more solid, like a research paper or study. If you've seen something along those lines, please post a link. I do believe that children with Asperger Syndrome often see the symptoms grow less severe as they age. Per…

What appears to be Aspergers now is very similar to spending lots of time on the Internet and then trying to interact socially afterwards. It's quite difficult to appear neuro-typical after a surfing session, and for today's kids, Aspergers is the 'New Normal'. Aspergers was even taken off the DSM-5: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...

aspergers was lumped into autism, it wasn't made non-diagnosable. Previously the criteria for aspergers were the same as autism but without delayed language development. Now they decided that distinction wasn't worth singling out with a special diagnosis so it's considered autism regardless of language delay. Those who had aspergers are now considered to simply have autism.

Re: Autism and Evolution

#65

Post by wpietri »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #23

I went the other way with it: high-functioning autism is a component of more-evolved humans. The autistics are more rational, often less selfish in my anecdotal experience, and cause almost no harm to others vs baseline. A world full of them would've largely eliminated famine, pollution, war, violent crime. It would be a fraction of what we see. Further, autistics and introverts are often behind many great advances t…

I like this.

Personally, I am not big on better/worse, but just different. E.g., we could look at white people as a weird mutation of true humans, one shockingly prone to skin cancer. Of course, as a white person, I'd rather see myself as an equally valid kind of human.

For a while I've been wondering what the DSM would look like if non-neurotypical people were in the majority. If we had a diganostic category for what we now call "normal" levels of sociality, selfishness, manipulation, violence, etc.

Re: Autism and Evolution

#66

Post by roywiggins »

gertef wrote: post #61
azakai wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does support non-genetic factors to some extent, but the existence of such twins matters less than their frequency, because twins don't always have identical DNA (mutations can occur after they separate).

If autism is caused by an individual mutation (not alredy present in the parent genome) it would be amazing that the mutation is so common, but not currently of a known form (like trisomy).

It could be that there are many genes and many mutations possible to cause it, which means two people with autism would almost certainly not share the same mutation. This would make it quite difficult to work out what the mutations are.

(There is one mutation that causes something like autism, fragile-X)

Re: Autism and Evolution

#67

Post by roywiggins »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #23

I went the other way with it: high-functioning autism is a component of more-evolved humans. The autistics are more rational, often less selfish in my anecdotal experience, and cause almost no harm to others vs baseline. A world full of them would've largely eliminated famine, pollution, war, violent crime. It would be a fraction of what we see. Further, autistics and introverts are often behind many great advances t…

There's no such thing as being more evolved. More fit, maybe. We're all as evolved as each other.

Otherwise you end up having to debate whether people with lactose tolerance are more evolved than people without, and so on. It gets messy.

Also, the history of eugenics. Autistic people have been sterilized and institutionalized, really quite recently. So I'm allergic to talk about people being more or less evolved.

Re: Autism and Evolution

#68

Post by psyc »

gertef wrote: post #62
nickpsecurity wrote: post #23

I went the other way with it: high-functioning autism is a component of more-evolved humans. The autistics are more rational, often less selfish in my anecdotal experience, and cause almost no harm to others vs baseline. A world full of them would've largely eliminated famine, pollution, war, violent crime. It would be a fraction of what we see. Further, autistics and introverts are often behind many great advances t…

OTOH, a world full of people with autism might never be able to come together and build large group projects. Autism might work well for creating in the computer+Internet age (but I have doubts that non-autism traits are totally unnecessary), but much less likely to work in lower-tech society.

I don't know. I for one love working with people as long as the focus stays on the goal and not on interpersonal stuff.

Re: Autism and Evolution

#69

Post by nickpsecurity »

gertef wrote: post #57
nickpsecurity wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

dragonwriter is right in general sense. We can evaluate it, though, from our own perspective. It's a step forward in terms of intelligence and stability in world. It's a giant leap backward in terms of success or happiness in a world of non-autistic people. Evolution would also consider it a negative in that autistics get laid and reproduce less than non-autistics. They also are more likely to loose in competition in…

There's a lot of rampant speculation in the comment here.

Just opinions like most interpretations in that field of study. That's all.

Re: Autism and Evolution

#70

Post by joeln502 »

adsfqwop wrote: post #4

I don't quite buy that autism will be shown to be genetic. I think it's an environmental factor. The rate of increase in autism is pretty much exponential: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111102/full/479022a/box/1.ht... Now that's a very scary chart if you start to project that curve into the future. Here's another one. Not saying this is the cause, but it is a cause for concern. We have many similar patterns of envi…

Small correction. We knew full well that lead was toxic, with adverse cognitive effects, before introducing it to gasoline.

https://www.wired.com/2013/01/looney-gas-and-lead-poisoning-...

Post reply on HN