How is Asperger a Disability or a Disorder?

Post Reply New Topic

I do not see why you would reach this conclusion.



The Wired article most certainly does not constitute any evidence for this (I doubt the Springerlink one does either). In fact the Wired article contains no information on the rate at which successful engineers reproduce relative to any other demographic. It did indicate that one consequence of having ASD affected children in many instances is a voluntary decision to not reproduce any more children. This would be a negative selection pressure.

So on the one hand the Wired article states explicitly that parents who find one child is Autistic are less likely to have more children. The article suggests those BAPers who assortively mate together are more likely to have an Autistic child. When you put these two premises together, the article suggests that such assortive mating in the instance of BAP (being genetically caused) probably produces a negative selective pressure against the BAP genes. What the article does not indicate is that successful engineers have a higher reproductive rate than mediocre or crap engineers, or people who are not engineers at all.

I doubt that the wealthiest of the wealthy actually include many BAPers. It takes a great deal more than merely being a successful engineer to reach such levels of wealth.

“X does not preclude Y” is not evidence that Y is true. You claimed that the BAP traits would be under positive selective pressure because it makes for successful engineers. I see no reason to believe that being a genetic trait providing an advantage in engineering will as a result produce any reproductive advantage. I offered one reason why someone might doubt this is the case. You have yet to offer any reason why someone would assume and believe it is the case.
I have no idea why you think this analogy is relevant.

The alleles for sickle cells are negatively selected against. In some environments there is also a positive selective pressure for these alleles because of the beneficial effects (in the environmental context) bestowed on people who are heterozygous for the alleles. Notably in such environments, assortive mating by heterozygous people would enhance negative selection against the allele because it would increase the likelihood of having off spring with sickle cell disease (reproductive dead ends) rather than having off spring who either lack a protective allele (against malaria) and suffer reduced fecundity (but are still reproductively viable) and off spring who are heterozygous for this allele.

I do not claim that they do preclude positive selection for BAP traits. My claim is that I see no reason to believe that predisposing someone to being a successful engineer is necessarily sufficient to produce a reproductive advantage (or positive selection if you prefer).
As with your other example, this example undermines rather than supports your case. Note that in the instance of both sickle cell disease and conditions such as Tay Sachs disease, the alleles involved are considered to be beneficial (at least in some environments) in heterozygous individuals, but result in a reproductive dead-end when paired in a homozygous individual. Consider the effects of assortive mating (heterozygotes mating with heterozygotes) will be an increased chance that off spring will be a reproductive dead end. Whereas there is no possibility of this occurring where heterozygots (for either sickle cell or Tay Sachs alleles) mate with someone who does not have such an allele. In the latter instance all offspring will either have the benefit of being heterozygous, or will not have the allele at all, and none of the off spring will be homozygous for the allele (ie none will have sickle cell disease or Tay Sachs disease).

In other words, both the examples you offer are ones where assortive mating would produce selective pressures against the alleles concerned, in that if people with the allele mate together (selectively assort together), their offspring each has a 25% chance of inheriting a fatal condition that will prevent them from reaching reproductive maturity in nearly every instance (in modern times medical interventions can lengthen the life span of individuals with sickle cell disease), whereas if heterozygous individuals avoid other heterozygous individuals, none of their off spring can inherit two copies of the allele concerned (and so none will end up with sickle cell disease or Tay Sachs), but each offspring has a 50% chance of inheriting a potentially beneficial single allele (of being heterozygous for the allele).

So in effect you have offered up two examples where assortive mating (people mating with those who share an underlying genetic trait) results in the alleles being subject to a negative selective pressure that would be reduced or mitigated if such individuals avoided assorting together for mating purposes.

From this we can assume that assortive mating is not necessarily going to produce a positive selective pressure and can actually be a source of reproductive disadvantage that produces a negative selective pressure against the reproduction of the allele concerned. I have yet to see any reason why we would conclude that in this instance_(ASDs/BAP) any selective pressures resulting from assortive mating would be positive rather than negative in respect of the alleles concerned.

If true, it does mean that assortive mating among BAPers will result in a negative selective pressure against the allele concerned rather than a positive one as you suggest.


I am not sure where you are going with this. I thought the discussion is about BAP individuals mating with BAP individuals, whether or not they actually happen to be engineers.


I do not really see the relevance as I have not suggested BAPers are chosing to not have children, but rather have pointed out that your article indicates people who are BAP might be assorting together, with the consequent being an increased chance of such couples have an ASD effected child and that discoverying one has an ASD effected child often results in a decision to not have any more children and that this could result in a distinct selective pressure against the BAP alleles that arises because of assortive mating.

Consider that if two BAPS mate, have an autistic child and do not breed further, they could have each instead bred with non BAPs and each produced multiple BAP children who could then do the same. Which results in more BAP alleles being reproduced?

So to recap, the premise that ASDs/BAP are being positively selected for (and the premise that such selection is occurring as a result of assortive mating) is not particularly likely (on the basis of current evidence).

I think what you are talking about could be happening in certain communities, ie Sillicon Valley, or other IT communities, and also scientific communities (ie near a university) but not all aspies are scientists and mathematicians. In my family the AS genes seem to be being passed through people with artistic leanings, and interests in history or sociological topics.

What I'm studying now is actually what the OP said. When a gift became a disability? I think that being aspie is like being red-haired or any other trait. Is not a gift or a disability per-se but it depends on how do you live it.

For istance I've an high intelligence and I'm an INTJ psicological kind. I'll be INTJ also without Asperger. Not socializing? Who wants to do it? Not understanding people? Where I lack innate understanding I can cope with my brain and usually go further than the average guy. I'm know as a "manipulator" because I RATIONALLY understand people and I'm able to use it. Sensory issue? Yes they are a pain, but I also have a very strong self control so I can fake them. Said that for me being aspie is only a gift but I can understand that not everybody is in that situation. Mainly is like being for istance very very tall, you can became a basket-player and be happy but you can also want to became an F16-pilot and being unable to do it because you are too tall. That's all if your wishes = your possiblities you'll be happy, otherwise you'll be not. And also, obviously, pros and cons are not given in equal way to people.

As for IQ. Aspie have highier than average IQ for definition (you'll be an aspie if you are in the autistic spectrum but you must also have an average or above average IQ, so basically aspie are smarter because otherwise you'll not considered an aspie, is "tautologic").

Nope. Below average to above average, the same as anyone else (75 to 125). With a few rare ones with mild mental retardation or in the gifted range (50 to 70 or so for the mild retardation, and 130+ or something like that for gifted).

I'd speculate that the average would be a little higher in people diagnosed with AS for the simple reason that they're socially isolated; this creates more time for the pursuit of knowledge, and especially if one's interest is somewhat cerebral. But, this doesn't discount that there's people with AS in the 80 range, just as there is in the 120 range.

Anyway, IQ is a rather useless measure for "disability" by itself, rather, it's just an adjunct to what else is there (unless of course, the mental retardation is the primary disorder). O, he has autism, but don't worry, he has an IQ of 120! He'll be fine!

Too bad his functional IQ is around 60....

Although according to the DSM, you are right, I suspect that Nightsun's tautology is spot on because of diagnostic bias. Although according to the DSM, somebody with an IQ of 80 could be diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, I bet they aren't anywhere near as often as people who test >100. Diagnosis is a subjective judgement call made by doctors so the Very Smart Little Professor stereotype becomes self-fulfilling because that's who they are most likely to give an Aspergers diagnosis to. I think they have created this tautology by skewing towards "Aspergers" if they see high intelligence and skewing towards "Autism" if they don't, even though they could according to the DSM so long as it is above the mental retardation cut-off.

It is interesting how "average or above average IQ" is, many times, "transformed" in "higher than the average".

Well, if we define "average IQ" as 100 and "higher than average" as >100, of course almost everybody with "average or above average IQ" will have "higher than the average".

but if we define "average IQ" as 70-130 and "higher than average" as >130, only 2 or 3% of the people with "average or above average IQ" will have "higher than the average" IQ.

And what the DSM says is not that "you must also have an average or above average IQ", but that "There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development " - it is not exactly the same thing.

Higher Average IQ?

It’s a statistical artifact that follows from restricting the lower end of the IQ spectrum included in the AS diagnosis.

To simplify matters consider that if you take a group of numbers and average them, then take a sub group that excludes the lowest 10% of the original numbers and average the sub group, the average of the second group will be higher simply because it excludes the lower numbers in the first group. This is a simplified analogy of what happens with AS. The general population includes everyone’s IQ, but the Asperger group excludes individuals using criteria intended to place a lower limit on IQ. In essence stating the average IQ for people with AS is higher than the average IQ for the general population is much like stating the average IQ for people whose IQ is in the normal range (above 75) is higher than the average IQ for the general population.

A question: there is any study (not theories, a study) about the IQ of people diagnosed with AS? A study with informations like average IQ, proportion of people in each range, etc.?

Maybe these rituals are functional to the person to ease anxiety/stress, physical environment exploration, predict things etc?

Perhaps someone looking at me would say that what I do has no function, but I could disagree, I could put forward an argument as to why I do what I do. I could verbally defend my actions.

I wonder if rituals are non-functional if someone else doesn't okay them first?

For instance, repeatedly checking equipment in a lab, would be a functional ritual for safety.
However, if someone did the same thing with their cooker at home, this kind of behaviour would be frowned upon or called "obsessive".

Perhaps people rationalise their innate inbuilt ritualistic behaviours to make them more socially acceptable and say:
"I'm just checking the equipment for safety."
"I'm just counting my prayer beads."
A lot of these rituals are inflexible, but they have a social back story.
People can construct an elaborate story around what they do to justify it.
Also if lots of people are performing the same ritual, then it's okay because it's socially accepted. If everyone does something, why question it?

But what if there is no story?
What if you're doing what you do by yourself and no one believe that what you're doing is functional apart from you?
Does this make the ritual any less functional because other people don't agree with it or don't appreciate the method of what you're doing?

Does functional in this context mean "socially functional" or "socially approved function"?

I'm confused.

I can see how adherence to a ritual would be disabling if it wasn't a socially accepted ritual or it prevented someone doing a ritual or living a life that was socially acceptable.

Who gets to judge whether the ritual is functional or non-functional, you or other people?

Is a ritual only become "non-functional" when you're doing it by yourself and it doesn't have a cultural "back story"?


Edit:

Some disciplines are very ritualistic.

Mathematics uses procedures and rituals of number manipulation, to solve problems.
Sometimes it is just Mathematics for it's own sake, then when someone finds an application for the procedure or algorithm, the ritual becomes "functional" and "applied".

What was once Pure Mathematics becomes Applied Mathematics when an application for the method is found. The Mathematician would argue that these strict rituals are functional and would even provide example functions, f(x) = ....

Mathematics, as I see it, is a bit like a "toolbox" filled with functions and algorithms.
Basically a "box" of ritualised behaviours that the Mathematician can use like tools to solve complex problems.

I wonder whether ritualised behaviour is in fact innate and if ritualised behaviour led to the development of tools by primates. So, were tools actually a consequence of ritualised innate behaviours?

The act of measuring something is a ritualised behaviour. It can also be repetitive.
The act of calculating how many or how much is also ritualised.

Algorithms are Mathematical rituals.

Intelligence doesn't mean anything with most disabilities. A person with savantism but missing their left arm is a disabled person. People with Aspeger's are actually mostly of average intelligence, and only a few have above-average IQs. The IQ myth needs to go. The disabling symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome are as follows:
- sensory processing disorder (hyper- or hypo-sensitivity to sound, light, touch, taste and smell)
- inability to interact appropriately in social settings
- clumsiness
- difficulty multitasking/dividing attention
- excessively stressed by unexpected events/changes
- sleeping disorders

I've probably skipped some, but these, for me, are disabling!

Mental disability is not limited to intellectual impairment. There are other parts of the brain and other functions that can be disordered. Lots of people share autistic traits, but what makes aspergers a disability is the fact that these symptoms interfere with normal development and prevent that person from functioning properly. I hope that answers your question.

I think asperger's is a disability in my eyes - it prevents me from easily socializing. While being an aspie has given me a few things that I should be proud of, the social part kills me and I'll never love myself because of it.

Below is an excerpt from an article called "Straight Talk about Autism", written by Paul Cooijmans, an IQ test designer.

In the article he states that Aspergers is a disability akin to being blind or having no legs.

I think he has some interesting points on Asperger Intelligence, Genius, and what makes Genius.

Here is a link to the full article. He also has some interesting opionions on diagnosing Aspergers and Mental Illness associations in the full article.

http://www.paulcooijmans.com/asperger/straight_talk_about_asperger.html

Are they highly intelligent?

There is a notion that Asperger Syndrome is related to high intelligence. A few things must be said about this:

Because of the convention to give this diagnosis only to who are not mentally handicapped, the average I.Q. of people with Asperger is artificially elevated compared to that of the rest of the population, which does include the mentally handicapped. But this means not that persons with Asperger are highly intelligent per se; just that their I.Q.s are mostly over 70.

Asperger is thought to be related to genius, and this makes people think of high intelligence. However, the relation with genius - which is real according to me - does not lie in the supposed high intelligence of those with Asperger, but in their conscientiousness and associative horizon, both of which are important components of genius next to intelligence.

Actually, within the group of individuals with Asperger, those with high intelligence are a minority (just as they are in the general population), and in the group of highly intelligent persons, those with Asperger are a minority (just as they are in the general population).

And my own activities with high-range intelligence tests have shown even more; that in the high range of intelligence there is a negative correlation between I.Q. and Asperger. In other words, those with Asperger are less intelligent. More recently I have also begun to suspect this may be different for females; in females, Asperger may not have this limiting (reducing) effect on intelligence, and it may even be that females with Asperger are more intelligent than other females. But that is still a hypothesis. In any case, the matter with females does not change the overall picture much, as females are a minority both among individuals with Asperger and among the highly intelligent.

Are they geniuses?
Genius, according to me, requires a wide associative horizon and large amounts of conscientiousness and intelligence. The first two thereof are typical of Asperger Syndrome, be it not necessarily in all cases where conscientiousness is concerned. This means that the minority of persons with Asperger who in addition have high intelligence are likely to become geniuses, or at least creative.

In studying the history of genius and the lives of geniuses it quickly becomes obvious that most if not all geniuses are Aspergoid, although a formal diagnosis is as good as never available (which is logical as Asperger was only in the 1990s added to the diagnostic manuals).

In fact the real challenge is to come up with examples of non-Aspergoid genius. If such exists, it is most likely to be found in the performing arts (singing, dancing, acting) and in the non-exact or "alpha" sciences. Possible candidates are the composer W. A. Mozart and the psychiatrist S. Freud (Not that I personally consider them geniuses; I just mention them because they are generally considered that).

And it really is IMO. While I count my blessings I'm fortunate that I never became like my brother who has severe autism(and I don't associate with him because of this and I think he's better off in a group home), I think being an aspie is a curse. To me the good(being introspective, a perfectionist, seeing people beyond face value, honesty, not going with the "crowd") is outweighed by the bad(problems socializing, not being able to get into relationships, craving social interactions while your brain is not letting you, being involuntarily celibate). I sometimes wish I wasn't born, to be honest with you all.

At age 21, I wasn't mad at anyone, but just felt like I was defective and didn't deserve to be here. Using my analytical mind, I determined there wasn't much chance I was going to make it in life. No matter what I said to myself, though, there was still a flicker of a flame, that instinctual will to survive, that made me go on, no matter how painful life seemed. I found a place to fit in and felt no one could be luckier than me because no matter how defective I thought I was, I found I was worthwhile in this world. I lived 23 years of happiness beyond my dreams.

Why am I here; what is the meaning of life? I think the simple and amazing answer is this: the thousands and thousands of ancestors I had and what they went through, their determination to survive, that gift they gave me that has allowed me to have sorrow and anguish, but simple pleasures, the love of a wife, family, friends, and vast experiences that would of seemed like heaven to them.

I think no matter who you are or what you believe, as long as you made one person smile, or took care of an animal, or planted a tree, your life was worthwhile because you helped something else live while you were here.

And for the curious, how did you find it?