Autism research on single neurons.

Post Reply New Topic

Most of the founders of the neurodiversity movement were people who grew up to become what were then called HFA's but were not Aspies. Most were people who had been diagnosed with classic autism -- NOT Asperger's syndrome, because they had speech delays, in some cases very long speech delays. Jim Sinclair didn't start talking until age 12 or so. The most famous neurodiversity advocate, Temple Grandin, also had a speech delay and was diagnosed with classic autism. Ditto for Stephen Shore and Michelle Dawson.

In History of ANI, Jim Sinclair wrote:


Yes, some longtime leading neurodiversity advocates were diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, such as Ari Ne'eman, but not the majority, as far as I can tell.

By the way: speaking personally as a newer and more rank-and-file neurodiversity advocate: I'm not an "Aspie" because I had a speech delay (albeit, in my case, not a terribly long speech delay; I began talking at age 4). My boyfriend has a diagnosis of "Asperger's syndrome," but that's technically a misdiagnosis under the DSM IV system because he too didn't start talking until age 4, and in his case required a speech therapist to help him start talking intelligibly at all, and he still has a speech impairment.

I think with a lot of these organisations , whether it be neurodiversity or mental heath service user groups, they're fronted by the more able within such groups who push for things that suit them rather than what is ok for all people with ASD or severe mental illness etc.

It's a glaring fault with such organisations .

Who founded the group back then is not the same as who it attracts today. Keep in mind the three who founded may have been identified with classic autism but that's not who they are today (and that's partly a testimony to their parent's hard slog/effort).

The research has been building for quite a while that unusual synaptic connection play a major role in Autism and Asperger's.

Unfortunately for those who would build a cure, they also play a major role in high educational attainment and intelligence - https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(19)30427-1 Not necessarily the same ones (though genome studies *have* shown some overlap between HFA and high IQ), but when you start playing around with synapses, who knows what unintentional damage you might do?

Given how IQ has become even more valuable in the modern economy, does it make sense to eliminate the risk of your child having Asperger's (which *is* qualitatively distinct from classical Autism - there's no evidence to suggest that they share a cause), if it means their IQ drops by 10 points, which could mean the difference between a well paid job and an average job - or an average job and a low paid one?

It's true that the most severely disabled people are unable to advocate for themselves and unable to participate in advocacy groups. However:

1) As I've already pointed out, the founders of the neurodiversity movement were mostly people who HAD BEEN severely disabled as children, some of whom remained nonverbal, etc., long enough to have clear memories of what that was like.

2) ASAN does make a point of reaching out to moderately disabled autistic people, including some non-speaking (but able to communicate via AAC) people.

It seems to me that, other factors being equal, very late talkers like Jim Sinclair (the founder of the first autistic rights organization) are more likely than anyone else to have good insights as to the best ways to care for severely disabled autistic children.

Not as qualitatively different as you think. Even among people diagnosed with classic autism, some had very high IQ (usually, higher nonverbal IQ than verbal IQ), and about 10% of people diagnosed with classic autism had savant skills. Temple Grandin was diagnosed with classic autism -- not Asperger's syndrome.


Among autistic people, even among Aspies, even geniuses are likely to be underpaid (if able to find jobs at all). So, I wouldn't make the above argument in terms of pay, but rather in terms of their potential contribution to the progress of society as a whole -- at least provided that enough autistic-friendly workplaces can be created.

Another important point: Even if they are not actually geniuses themselves, many, perhaps most, autistic people have traits that are necessary components of genius. Just take a look at the questions on the AQ test. That test is a measure of what is popularly called "nerdiness" or "geekiness," in multiple senses of those words. I would expect the majority of grad students in STEM fields, for example, to have relatively high AQ scores, and thus to fit at least the "broad autistic phenotype" (BAP), although I would not expect the majority of them to be impaired enough to be diagnosed with ASD. Hence, if autism were to be eliminated from the gene pool, it is likely that genius too would be eliminated.

I think it's highly doubtful that if autism was eliminated genius would be eliminated too.

Perhaps you should remember that people with "Aspergers" still have a significantly higher rate of unemployment than NTs.
It's actually pretty bad - chronic unemployment of 75-85%. So trying to sell the idea that you might miss out on an Aspie "super human" isn't going to cut it with parents who have the option to abort....

That's a pretty big call! until gene mapping is more advanced it's way to early to be making that claim

Indeed the above claim can't be made with certainty at the present time, but there are good reasons to suspect it. More about this later, in another thread.

Perhaps you should read posts before replying to them. Or do you not know what the word "risk" means?

I do but didn't see you use it?

Then again it could increase by 10 points .

Bolded it to make it clear.

Firemonkey,

It could, but that's a lot less likely than it dropping - both because IQ closer to the mean is a lot more common anyway, and because if a trait is connected with higher IQ, and you eliminate that trait, you would not expect that trait to suddenly become connected to lower IQ...

^ I think a link to higher intelligence is tenuous at best. Most people, ND or NT, fall within the average range of intelligence. Yes,some people will be highly intelligent on the spectrum , but most aren't.

A person's IQ doesn't determine if one gets a "less well-paid," or "more well-paid" job.

They don't give IQ tests when you're interviewing for a prospective job.