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

In search of a truce in the autism wars

spectrumnews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 169 posts

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#91

Post by bsder »

therealforsen wrote: post #85
fwip wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolutionary pressures aren't as simple as "if it lowers your chance of reproducing it's bad." You can read "The Selfish Gene" for more info. Consider a gene that promotes compassion, selflessness and sharing. While it may lower your individual fitness, groups with some individuals with this gene may fare better as a whole. Same as autism. For example, say autistic people see connections that other people don't. Havi…

Why would an individuals fertility be increased because the fertility of his group is increased? The gene would not propagate unless he has more children than his peers. There is no evidence of evolution by natural selection to begin with, though.

If the group with the trait has on average a slightly higher reproduction rate than a group without, that is sufficient.

This doesn't mean that any particular individual will have a higher rate (although most will).

One hypothesis for the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire is that Christianity provided social services that improved reproductive rates by a couple of percentage points. Maintain that over a particularly stressful upheaval in the social order and you don't need many generations to significantly outbreed your rivals.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#92

Post by mcguire »

Forty years or so ago, we decided that many of the people in total mental institutions would have better lives outside of those institutions---there was no need for them to be effectively incarcerated.

So we closed the institutions.

For the last forty years or so, we have had a growing problem of those with severe mental illnesses becoming homeless. Progress?

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#93

Post by nwallin »

komali2 wrote: post #40
keenmaster wrote: post #17

We’re probably all better off because some people have autism. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an evolutionary explanation for its prevalence. However, there are so many consequences to being “abnormal” that most neurotypicals would refuse to be reincarnated as autistic if given the choice. If you have autism, the traits conferred by the condition have become part of your identity. You very well may not see it as…

>evolutionary explanation Hmm... I hope someone more knowledgeable than me in biology jumps in to lend their thought, but I'm extremely skeptical of takes like this - another one I see a lot online is that somehow homosexuality has "evolutionary explanations." It doesn't jive with my understanding of how evolution works. Statements like that seem to imply there is some sort of intelligent force or plan behind evoluti…

> As far as I know there's no way for evolution to "sprinkled a bit of autism" across a population for an increased chance of population survival - I don't see how such a mechanism could exist.

Not strictly autism, but sickle cell anemia is a disease caused by carrying two copies of a recessive gene. If you have two copies of the recessive gene, you suffer from a debilitating illness. If you carry one copy of the normal gene and one copy of the disease causing recessive version, you have increased resistance to malaria, which has killed more humans than everything else combined. So evolution definitely does contribute to the prevalence of sickle cell anemia. Almost everyone in the US we suffers from sickle cell anemia is of sun Saharan African descent, where malaria is especially relevant.

While autism certainly isn't as simple as sickle cell anemia, there does exist the possibility that genetic components which contribute to autism can also contribute to other, more positive traits with fewer risk factors.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#94

Post by cybersnowflake »

Anyone who thinks autism is just a difference in personality that doesn't need treatment is welcome to foot the bill for all the people including my nephew who has difficulty talking and cannot live independently now and may very well continue to be this way long after his parents pass away.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#95

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

umvi wrote: post #53
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is relevant to what people would choose, lacking that experience, how exactly? Because that was the topic being discussed ...

Presumably in this hypothetical situation where you can "cure" autism, you can also "uncure" autism. My point is that austistic people who choose to deliberately stay autistic without experiencing what it is like to be non-autistic are making a biased choice (likely rooted in fear of the unknown). The objective course of action is to experience being non-autistic for a few years before deciding whether you actually l…

> Presumably in this hypothetical situation where you can "cure" autism, you can also "uncure" autism.

For one, I don't see how that's justified. There are plenty of diseases we can't uncure?!

And then, the choice to try out non-autism is already a decision to be non-autistic, even if only temporarily.

> My point is that austistic people who choose to deliberately stay autistic without experiencing what it is like to be non-autistic are making a biased choice (likely rooted in fear of the unknown).

Well, yes, obviously. And how is that relevant, when noone claimed they were making an unbiased decision?

> The objective course of action is to experience being on-autistic for a few years before deciding whether you want to "uncure" yourself.

More subjective experience doesn't make the decision objective, just better informed. And in any case, it's still besides the point, because noone was making claims about how objective or how informed the decision is?

When someone says "Plenty of people don't drink alcohol, and are happy with it, and have no interest in trying alcohol", it's simply a non-sequitur to respond "But the objective course of action is to experience drinking alcohol for a few years." Yes, the decision would be better-informed, but being better informed is not a prerequisie for being happy with what you are doing, nor does the fact that you could try drinking alcohol have any relevance to the assertion that some people just aren't interested.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#96

Post by shkkmo »

mcguire wrote: post #92

Forty years or so ago, we decided that many of the people in total mental institutions would have better lives outside of those institutions---there was no need for them to be effectively incarcerated. So we closed the institutions. For the last forty years or so, we have had a growing problem of those with severe mental illnesses becoming homeless. Progress?

How many of those homeless would choose to re-enter those institutions if they were available?

Would you rather be homeless or in jail if given the choice?

Perhaps we can find a third option where safe and supportive communities are provided that have various levels of minimal removal of agency.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#97

Post by apatters »

keenmaster wrote: post #17

We’re probably all better off because some people have autism. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an evolutionary explanation for its prevalence. However, there are so many consequences to being “abnormal” that most neurotypicals would refuse to be reincarnated as autistic if given the choice. If you have autism, the traits conferred by the condition have become part of your identity. You very well may not see it as…

It's a normal thing all over the world. The answer unfortunately is yes, most people are shallow and vindictive in a negligent sort of way. There's a saying that great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss things, and small minds discuss people. By this metric the majority undoubtedly possess small minds.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#98

Post by tapland »

sbenitoj wrote: post #87
NeoBasilisk wrote: post #52

I fully acknowledge that conditions affecting the brain will have a much larger impact on one's identity. That much is obvious. That being said, if I had the option to "correct" most of my personal atypical genetic "variations," I would do so. Colorblindness? Yep, I don't want that. Congenital flat feet? I don't need those. IBS? No thanks. Hair loss starting at 17? Nope! Weird neurological symptoms no doctor has ever…

What have you tried? At least 2 of those are autoimmune conditions which can be greatly improved with the auto-immune protocol.

I hear this a lot on here.

Do you know what the point of not wanting for example IBS or Chrohn's (which I have) is?

SURPRISE It's not to be forced on a restrictive diet SURPRISE

Yes, diet makes it work. We know. That's like the majority of treament.

The point is, you don't want to have to go on a weird diet.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#99

Post by skookumchuck »

shkkmo wrote: post #96
mcguire wrote: post #92

Forty years or so ago, we decided that many of the people in total mental institutions would have better lives outside of those institutions---there was no need for them to be effectively incarcerated. So we closed the institutions. For the last forty years or so, we have had a growing problem of those with severe mental illnesses becoming homeless. Progress?

How many of those homeless would choose to re-enter those institutions if they were available? Would you rather be homeless or in jail if given the choice? Perhaps we can find a third option where safe and supportive communities are provided that have various levels of minimal removal of agency.

Yes, I'd rather be homeless than in an institution.

Re: In search of a truce in the autism wars

#100

Post by robotresearcher »

bsder wrote: post #91
therealforsen wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would an individuals fertility be increased because the fertility of his group is increased? The gene would not propagate unless he has more children than his peers. There is no evidence of evolution by natural selection to begin with, though.

If the group with the trait has on average a slightly higher reproduction rate than a group without, that is sufficient. This doesn't mean that any particular individual will have a higher rate (although most will). One hypothesis for the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire is that Christianity provided social services that improved reproductive rates by a couple of percentage points. Maintain that over a part…

> Christianity provided social services that improved reproductive rates

Social services, and perhaps this might have some impact:

"In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence."

https://www.catholic.com/tract/birth-control

Post reply on HN