Scientific Brain Linked to Autism 524
squoozer writes "The BBC is reporting that a leading scientist in area of Developmental Psychopathology, Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, is indicating that there is good chance that there is a scientific basis to the observed phenomenon that children with highly analytical parents are more likely to be autistic. He believes the genes which make someone analytical may also impair their social and communication skills. A weakness in these areas is the key characteristic of autism."
old news.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wired article a few years back (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone else remember it? It doesn't seem to be on their website (tried searching "autism" and "autistic"). It came with a quiz and everything. Anyone? Anyone?
Kim Peek & NASA (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, there has been a lot of speculation about how neurons work and what makes someone autistic. I once had a lengthy conversation with James Olds of George Mason's Krasnow Institute [gmu.edu] and asked him about Peek. Olds explained to me that it's very mysterious how savants develop. I asked him if Peek had an abnormally large cortex but he dismissed this, citing that elephants are not geniuses. He also gave me an anecdotal story of a Harvard football player that injured his shoulder blade as the star quarter back. When they x-rayed him, they also found out that his head was mostly filled with water and the result was a severe lack of brain tissue. However, he was a 4.0 grade point average student. I asked Dr. Olds if Peek's neurons might be more densely populated but he also dismissed this saying that neurons are huge on nutrient consumption and if they grow too closely together, they will kill each other.
Anyone care to take a stab at this? Can anyone speculate on this?
Wired ran a story in 2001 (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a similar story in Wired [wired.com] about the rise of Autism in Rochester, Mn (home of a very large number of IBM employees).
Apparently, slight to mild autism is a genetic trait that is good for programmers.
I wonder if this applies to Asperger's Syndrom... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yup. We're still cavemen. (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, a close friend is an occupational therapist with a lot of experience in helping out kids experiencing the full spectrum of autistic characteristics. She's indicated that a somewhat unscientific review of those kids' parents (hundreds of which she's met and gotten to know) would completely resonate with the findings mentioned in the article. She and her husband, both sharp, analytical people, just gave birth - and not without some trepidation. Just in case, they watched re-runs of "Pimp My Ride" before conceiving.
Makes sense to me... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a lot of work, but IME is well worth it. See the conference papers at my website [davespicer.org] for more on one person's experience of autism...
Re:Wired article a few years back (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Evolution (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:old news.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have always suspected it myself (Score:5, Interesting)
In any case, like so many other slashdotters, I suspect my analytical disconnection (my own handicap in it's own way) has always been a hinderance in terms of social skills and adaptation. I have learned, however, that I can compensate to a degree (though not completely by any stretch) by reaching out to the more emotional part of myself and allow it to do some of the thinking for me. This results in at least a mildly child-like acclimation, but I believe it's a start for most as I have found myself growing quite a bit through such exercises. As for the rest of the balance, I have found that learning how to transmit the impression of confidence, competence and wisdom, while trying not to appear arrogant and superior, makes up for anything else. I have found that most people are really very shallow and don't require much illusion to be convinced... just dress the dress, walk the walk, talk the talk and the people are believers.
Easier said than done, of course -- it takes a lot of practice and a great many episodes in life where you closely identify with Data from ST:TNG.
Not surprising. (Score:2, Interesting)
I've heard this before and I still question why this would be anything other than obvious. I personally find situations that require what is typically considered "social skills" to be almost completely void of reason. It has taken quite a bit of effort on my part to adjust to socializing with other people and I don't believe that I have any form of autism/Asperger's. When I was young (highschool) I just didn't get it. I still don't, but I can play the game by the rules pretty well for the most part. Is it really that surprising to find that someone who is significantly more hard-wired for analytical thinking than most to have trouble adapting to such an illogical system?
Re:Kim Peek & NASA (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, this is primarily speculation as even our computer modeling is unsuccessful at predicting protein folding resulting from genetic sequences. I'm hoping that the story about better protein crystalis [slashdot.org] helps researches better understand protein formation and function in regards to not only viruses but also neurons as Alzheimer's desease is a big industry now that the baby boomers are living far past their prime.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, it can be helpful and interesting to scramble up some statistics on a question for a study omelette, but we have certainly destroyed some information in the process. Ex post facto attempts to opine about the original materials will leave us with egg on the face.
Elsewhere on Wikipedia, Einstein [wikiquote.org] is on record for doubting whether the Almighty throws dice with the universe. Allow me to second that from the standpoint of refusing to fret. Do what you consider Destiny would have you do with respect to your reproduction; rejoice in any outcome.
Re:Evolution (Score:2, Interesting)
Settling with a subset of "perfect" is going to be much easier. :-D
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
Mother of autistic girl (Score:1, Interesting)
Social Skills (Score:3, Interesting)
Used to volunteer with the mentally challenged and handicapped in high school. The more severe cases of autism are not an inability to relate, but an inability to communicate. Autistic kids (I was working with teenagers) have no sense of empathy. If you tried to say hello, they would not look you in the face. Kids with serious autism can't stand human interaction. Its not a matter of learning human interaction, its a matter of being withdrawn from the world and not being able to pull yourself to the level of the rest of society. We operated a summer camp for children, both differently and regularly abled. Part of the time his parents were there - we tried operating a boat ride with him. It took us 10 minutes to get a life preserver on him. You can't get face to face to put a life preserver on; having a face within 3 feet of him is too intimate of contact for a severe case of Autism. They get scared and withdraw. This kid was a runner too, when he did get scared he ran - he had boundless energy.
Now granted, there are intermediate cases, and I know people with slight cases who operate well enough in real life. Its not a cakewalk and certain social interactions can't just "be learned". Some can be faked well enough to get along but its not the same for the person living the life. But autism is very real, and very abstract. Its nothing like being a geek and just not being socially aware. That is not a valid comparison.
haha, silly scientists (Score:2, Interesting)
Amish kids don't get Autism. They don't get vaccines either.
But it's silly to question "science" on slashdot - just about the same as walking into a fundamentalist church & telling them their Xian religion is all about control, and NOT about what the founder actually taught.
Re:Fascinating fact (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually according to this article [findarticles.com], you are correct.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:3, Interesting)
Social skills are overrated (Score:2, Interesting)
However...
They amount to little more than mutual stroking. Stroking of the lymbic system via words and body language, but nonetheless just stroking.
The reason they are "so important" is simple: the world is run by people who have them, use them, and judge you by them. They, however, have little intrinsic value.
I am not saying that the would would be a better place if we had no emotions. However, I am suggesting that we live in a great emotion-orgy, and that we would be far better off if there were a lot more mild autistics in the world.
Usually, the people who disagree with me the most strongly are people who are quite stupid, have no genuinely productive capabilities, but talk well. Go figure.
--AC
Re:I tend to believe the converse (Score:3, Interesting)
Neurotypicality is a pervasive developmental condition, probably present since birth, in which the affected person sees the world in a very strange manner. It is a puzzle; a enigma that traps those so affected in a lifelong struggle for social status and recognition. Neurotypical individuals almost invariably show a triad of impairments, consisting of inability to think independently of the social group, marked impairment in the ability to think logically or critically, and inability to form special interests (other than in social activity). It is my hope that this article will help us understand the very different world of the neurotypical.
It brings to mind the book "Clans of the Alpine Moon" by Phlip K. Dick, where the only 'normal' person proved to be the meth-insomniac that originally was planning to kill his wife... Just goes to show.
Re:'Social skills' (Score:2, Interesting)
It isn't always. Sometimes people say the right thing and sometimes they screw up and say the wrong thing. But they are saying something. They can talk naturally.
There is a marked difference between having nothing to talk about and not being able to talk about something. There is also a large difference between talking 'about something' and talking 'with someone.' What do I mean by that? Well, I can, for example, have a conversation about programming. Or computer hardware. Or a video game. Or football. I can talk about specific subjects that I know about. But sit me down with someone and I have no idea how to act. Nothing comes to mind. If they happen to bring up a subject I can talk about that thing, but once we've talked about whatever subject it is, I'm back to drawing a blank. Even when I have something I want to say or ask it is very hard for me to get it out. Back in high school I would literally have to work up the nerve for 5 or 10 minutes just to ask someone in my class what I missed while I was sick. I'm a little better now, but even something as simple as calling up a friend to see if they want to go do something is a daunting task for me. I generally have to run over several possibile responses in my head before I ask someone a question so that I can respond no matter how they react. If they react in a way that I didn't think about, I blank out. It's not like a bunch of possible responses are running through my head and I reject them. It's not like I have a bunch of unrelated thoughts in my head. It's like someone sucked everything out of my brain and all that's left is a vacuum.
I love screwing with them by ignoring their 'between the lines' cues and deliberately feeding them 'cues' of my own to make them respond 'wrong'. You would then say I 'lack social skills'
I'm really not sure where you're getting this from. If you have the ability to choose to ignore clues and non-verbal communication then you must have the ability to read it if you wish. What I am describing is not someone who chooses to ignore clues, but someone to whom they literally don't exist. For example:
Other Person: "The movie's at 3, we should probably be leaving pretty soon."
Me: "Yeah, probably." Sits and does nothing
Other Person: "I mean let's leave now."
Me: "Oh, well why didn't you say so?"
Now you may choose to deliberately ignore the implication in the first sentence for the purpose of annoying someone. But some people can't pick up on something that's even that obvious. Looking at the words in print I can pick it up, but if someone said that to me in real life I would have a seriously difficult time trying to determine if they meant "Let's leave now" or "Let's leave in 5 minutes." This is also a pretty simplistic example. In a more complex conversation I probably have no chance.
Re:'Social skills' (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that this is exactly the parent's point, that techies don't know how to relate to "regular people." For instance, with men the biggest single area of common interest seems to be sports, yet it's not mentioned at all in your conversation starters. I love sitting down and watching a good (American) football game or even Cricket. But for me, there are a lot more interesting things to do than to read the sports section daily or to memorize stats like how the Yankees pitching staff does against lefty batters or by how many points the AFC has beaten the NFC in the superbowl. The only reason I even think about these things is to have conversation starters with people who don't/won't talk about AMD vs Intel, the latest MAME release, why Linux will/won't take over the desktop, or my latest microcontroller project. Superbowl? Yeah, I'll watch it intently and really enjoy it, but after a month I'll forget the final score and I'll forget at least one team that played in time for Superbowl XLI.
Now, f*cking with people while your talking sounds fun and shows a degree of sophistication in your knowledge and analysis of the meta-level of a conversation, which most people are not even aware of, but you gotta admit that it may not be the best strategy to "win friends and influence people" in social situations!
Re:pwn3d (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wired article a few years back (Score:2, Interesting)
A couple of weeks ago we came to the conclusion that my girlfriend's father is high-functioning autistic (maybe Aspberger's, maybe something else). He's in his late 70's and in failing health, and it wasn't until he started living with us full time that we were able to put the pieces together and realize his self-absorption wasn't a character flaw, it was due to genuine neurological impairment. In his own capacity, he's actually highly involved in the world around him, just in a different way than we would normally expect. It's revolutionized how we deal with him and has made our lives unbelievably easier -- literally overnight.
What fascinates me about autism is that humans are, as a species, highly social. We evolved for social interactions, with extraordinary sensitivity to eye contact, microexpressions, and the subtlest social cues. Thus there's a strange double-bind with autism: It impairs an individual's ability to understand and participate in "normal" social interactions, and at the same time the people around the autistic individual (especially someone high-functioning) are impaired in their ability to perceive the autism because they are putting "social explanations" to the autistic person's behavior: he's rude, he's egomaniacal, he's a slob, he's lazy, he's stupid. When in reality the person's behavior is following an internal logic that leaves out social phenomena like sarcasm, subtle social cues, eye contact and microexpressions, and curiosity about melodrama. The autistic person, once understood, can actually be refreshingly direct and can contribute a lot through their increased capacities, such as long-term information recall, honesty, and attention to detail.
My gf's father's family would appear to be autistic with the possible exception of one sister; one brother was probably autistic complicated by schizophrenia (which seems to share neuropathology) and killed himself at a young age. Both parents were likely autistic as well, certainly the mother. Environmental factors would seem not to be the culprit since each person in the family was born in a different location. Neither parent was well-educated, though the autistic sister was an accomplished pattern-cutter and later got a college degree. My gf's father does have a Ph.D. in education and was a chemistry professor for years, but his education was hard-won due to writing and social difficulties. He still has extraordinarily factual recall but has a very difficult time synthesizing diverse facts and struggles to understand the conclusions that scientists reach when the line of thought is not simple and obvious.
Re:'Social skills' (Score:3, Interesting)
Luckily, over time I have managed to apply numerous types of analyses to social situations.
This has allowed me to pass for normal when need be.
I don't believe I was seriously stricken with the symptoms, but I was extremely socially awkward when I was young.
Teachers took notice and made remarks to my parents.
People still find me to be an unusual element in social settings, but I don't find one-on-one conversations difficult, so I have friendships and a love life.
It's difficult to put myself in someone else's shoes.
People tell me that I live in my own world, that I seem like I must've come from an alien planet, that I regard the world as an experiment with which I can tinker, that I am unwilling to participate in group conversations and activities.
Whatever. They can take me for who I am. I don't feel that I'm unable to be socially involved; it's just that it is often very complicated to map oneself appropriately into a given social circumstance.
Re:Wrong Line of Research (Score:3, Interesting)
both expensive to conduct, relatively expensive and may be clustering stuff together that is really caused by rather different things. Once you have a set of physical tests, then you've gotten a handle on the basic science here. Right now, it is really problematic. We know that lead and mercury exposure can cause increased autism rates in some populations-but we don't necessarily know what those populations are--or which cases of autism are being caused by that risk factor. Just doing the physical tests will break things down a lot. Fudenberg/Singh had at least 6 distinct tests the last I spoke with them-and i think those could accurately identify 97% or so of autistic kids with fairly few false positives. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if different genetic vulnerabilities an environmental factors are involved for each one of the 6(most of these were viral exposures--plus mercury). Once you break things down though, other stuff might be done on the epidemiology of autism-spectrum disorders.
What Fudenberg and Singh are doing is real science-but unfortunately isn't getting a lot of recognition or attention. Baron-Cohen strikes me as more a media phenonmena. This stuff just isn't very useful-or good science.
Even the inclusion of the "Kanner kids" with the newer autistic populations is pretty questionable. The "Kanner kids" are in various ways rather different than the newer autistic populations we've seen in recent years(i.e. a lot of the kids from newer population are more affectionate for example).
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Interesting)
If that's the case, that it's more beneficial to be strong and brutish than smart, how come are ancestors show a progession of larger cranial capacity and more creative and clever tools? In other words, why are we getting smarter?
If you look all over the world and throughout history, you'll find that people who don't live in civilization (read: cities) are just as smart as us modern cityfolk.
Don't be stupid and risk your life killing a bear. If you try it and die, you'll have absolutely *no* reproductive success. Instead, build a trap that kills the bear *for* you, so you can come pick it up at your leisure.
Want to bring down a wolly mammoth to feed the whole tribe for a week? First, track them for a few days so you know their routine and habits. Figure out at what point on their daily route they are least nervous. Get to know them better then they know themselves. Then, get a bunch of your buddies and cover yourselves in leaves and mud to hide your figure and scent. Then, when the time is right, everyone throws a stick tipped with razor sharp obsidian. Whatever you do, don't go it alone with your bare hands! You will definately get killed, and you will get no more pussy if you are killed. Instead, use your brain. Craft some high precision weapons and organize a bunch of your buddies to go with you. Or, hook up with some guy who already has a plan. Much less risk, much greater chance of reward.
If you look at who runs societies, from the jungles to the cities, it's not athelets or brutes. It is elder statesmen, who have excelled at politics and have spent their whole life climbing and building the social hierarchy.
Re:Kim Peek & NASA (Score:2, Interesting)
The alternative is that we have a kilo or 2 of flesh that is totally optional in some cases. That for some reason evolution has just kept that around because it is sometimes handy, like a massive appendix. Somehow, i doubt it. As carl sagan was found of saying, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.