How is Asperger a Disability or a Disorder?

Post Reply New Topic

Welcome to WP.

If you have been doing your homework (and taking all the tests) I am surprised that you are asking this question, unless it is rhetorical.

The clinical definitions are fairly simple to understand!

Are we all missing something?

I'm not claiming that full Autism is being select for. I'm claiming the "Geek Syndrome" (as mentioned in the Wired article) is being selected for. (I.e., the phenotype where you are neurologically like someone with Asperger, BUT are NOT disabled.)

(@Danielismyname suggested that the technical term for the "Geek Syndrome" might be Broader Autism Phenotype or PDD-NOS.)

Asperger's is a disability because it involves impairments. People with Asperger's have impaired social skills. Their executive function is impaired. They can't read facial expressions.

In the context of "nil evidence" the assumption that Aspergers is being selected for is not particularly likely. Unless and until there is a compelling body of evidence suggesting that this is likely, then it remains not particularly likely. The current evidence in this area fails to establish a case that compellingly suggests that it is particularly likely that Autism is being_positively selected for. So on the basis of current evidence, it is not particularly likely that Aspergers is being genetically selected for.

Read the article on Wired for some evidence.

(And keep in mind that I'm NOT suggesting the disabled form is being selected for; just the non-disabled form. I.e., what's informally being called the "Geek Syndrome".)

Also... although I have a small sample size, I've been noticing that the high-end of engineers have the "Geek Syndrome" as well. (Which is more evidence.)

Your analogy is a little off. It'd be like opposable thumbs that don't actually work at all, or in the least, you keep on dropping things you pick up compared to your peers.

The article is detached from reality in many instances, see:


Firstly, Rain Man can be seen as having AS, just on the more severe end ("HFA"). Most with AS don't actually live by themselves, they're actually living at home with their parents or in group homes per the latest studies, and most don't work also. Children and adults with AS spend their waking hours in trancelike states also, absorbed in their narrow interests (is there much of a difference between staring at a book on factual data compared to a picture?). The rest is more typical of Profound Autism, but, is there much difference to someone trying to communicate via squealing or echoing compared to reciting what they've read (the child and adult with AS who lectures on and on is just using an advanced form of echolalia)? Both lack social context, and they both often lead to the same outcome, which is social isolation.

Some with AS, do quite well if their interest is socially marketable, like computers/IT, but it's just as likely that their interest may be trains, and they won't be able to work as a conductor due to their disability.

I think my analogy is accurate. Keep in mind I'm talking about the non-disabled version that's being informally called "Geek Syndrome".

I have read the article and it certainly does not present a compelling case that Asperger Syndrome is being positively selected for.


Er, the article predominately refers to the DSM condition Asperger Syndrome. BAP is only briefly mentioned in passing and so far as I know there are no wide claims that BAP is a disability or disorder. It is Asperger Syndrome, the condition largely referred to in the article that is treated and widely cited as a disability/disorder. So far as I know it is Asperger Syndrome rather than BAP which is jokingly referred to as the “Geek Syndrome”.

If you mean to ask about why BAP is construed as a disability or disorder, the simple answer is that generally speaking it’s not widely regarded as being either of these things.

First, remember I'm not talking about the disabling Asperger. I'm talking about the non-disabling form. You are calling it BAP. So maybe that's a better name. Having said that....

You have to connect the dots a bit.

First, you have to see that assortative mating is going on. (I.e., engineers are breeding with other engineers.)

Second you have to realize "skills" that make you more successful at engineering are associated with BAP. Increased abilities for logic and rational thinking, etc.

Third you have to realize the more successful engineers are more likely to breed than the less successful ones. (Thus amplifying BAP into the next generation.)


BTW, here's some more evidence...

Mathematical Talent is Linked to Autism
http://www.springerlink.com/content/21t03377610752g0/

It's funny how I am horrendous at math, which would make me horrendous at engineering and anything that people like to 'link' with Autism skills. Yet I have Autism.

I don't really like that Asperger's Syndrome is labeled as a geek syndrome, I mean sure a lot of people with AS are quite smart but there have been quite a few cases of people having Asperger's and MR.. *shrug*

I don't understand this whole Phenotype thing either, it's all confusing.

I still stand by saying that Asperger's Syndrome is a disability, along with the other spectrum disorders as well.

But the question is, are there enough lady engineers for all the male engineers to breed with? I think women would be thin on the ground in those industries...

I read something once about engineer males being likely to marry women working in industries such as nursing.

Anyway I am so crap at maths its not funny...

Well as its not an imparent to me it's not

Being positively selected is not the same as being selectively assorted.

I do not realize any such thing, nor would I assume it without evidence. The wider trend in industrialized “Anglo Western” societies is for higher birth rates among the less affluent economic classes and lower birth rates among the more affluent economic classes. There is no reason to believe that the capacity to produce good engineering skills necessarily results in any significant reproductive advantage.

The problem with your interpretation of the evidence is that the same evidence can indicate that it is unlikely BAP would be positively selected for if BAPers are selectively assorting with each other at a significant proportion.

It is quite plausible based on the article to suggest that two BAP or mildly effected parents have a heightened chance of producing a severely effected individual, particularly relative to mixed couples. If BAP individuals avoid other BAPs rather than assorting with them, the beneficial alleles will be more likely to passed on to an individual who is BAP rather than too severely impacted to be likely to reproduce. On the other hand, by assorting together, BAPers are more likely to have off spring who are severely effected and have a reduced likelihood of reproducing. Further such couples often choose to not have more children as a consequence of discovering one of their existing children is Autistic (described in the article as “stoppage”) further lowering their reproductive rate.

I agree. It's only a true reproductive advantage if you have grandchildren and great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren etc. If not, you ultimately get out-reproduced by the people who did.

I'm going to reply to a couple people in one post.

No, that's not really the question. I didn't strictly mean that male engineers had to breed with female engineers. You could have male engineers breeding with non-engineer females, but that the children of these kind of couples would need to breed amount themselves, would be sufficient.




You're correct, it not the same. But I never said that they were.

To be explicit, what I was implying was that when you have assortative mating you tend to have selection.



The Wired article and the SpringerLink article are both evidence. They may not be enough evidence to convince you. But they are evidence nonetheless.



First (before I mention why this is NOT relevant) let me mention that there's evidence that shows that the top of the upper class is breeding "like gangbusters" too. Or to be more precise, the top of the upper class has a high fecundity too. I can't find the source for this at the moment. But I'll try and dig it up. But anyways....

Macro fertility rates like this do NOT preclude the selection I mentioned. I.e., this is not relevant. For one, people aren't breeding randomly.

(For an analogy) does the high fertility rate or China or India mean that in Sickle-Cell Anemia isn't being selected for in parts of Sub-Sarah Africa as a resistance against malaria?! The answer is... no, course not; the high fertility rate of China and India does not preclude that selection.

And in the same way the high fertility rates you mentioned don't preclude the selection for BAP (within some populations).




This reminds me of the Cochran et al. theory of Ashkhenazi intelligence. (In case you're not familiar with it) the jist of the theory is that.... The Ashkhenazi are known for having a number of neurological diseases. The theory is that there is a "gene" for each of these diseases, but that you need 2 copies of the "gene" to get the disease. But if you only have one copy of the "gene" you get an IQ boost. Because it is such that they have IQ being selected for, they are also selecting for the disease.

I agree with respect to the two BAPers pairing up might be a bad idea. But that doesn't mean that BAP isn't being selected for. As I mentioned to @zen_mistress, I didn't strictly mean that male engineers had to breed with female engineers. You could have male engineers breeding with non-engineer females, but that the children of these kind of couples would need to breed amount themselves, would be sufficient.

One thing to keep in mind is that I believe most BAPers don't realize they are BAPers. So they're not likely to choose not to have kids to avoid full out (disabling) Autism.

I'd feel proud if ours were around 200!