Theory of random Brain-variation

Post Reply New Topic

In Chris MacManus's book "RIGHT HAND LEFT HAND" he describes his theory of random brain-variation.

2 hypothetical genes are essential to this theory: The D-gene, that causes a rigidly standarized placement of functions in the hemispheres; and the C-gene, that randomly places functions in the hemispheres.

Because of the relative "slowness" of corpus callosum, functions that are placed in different hemispheres will not be able to cooperate in an optimal way, while functions that are placed closer to eachother will.

The theory states that there are 3 different genotypes:

The common DD-genotype, that will always (unless too heavily disturbed by other factors) result in a typically structured brain;

The less common DC-genotype, that will result in a structure very similar to the DD one, but that will randomize the placement of 1 or more functions (note that the random placements may still be like the standard, as that is the nature of "random");

The uncommon CC-genotype, that will randomize all placements.

Supposedly, the mathmatics and statistics support this theory as a possible explanation of left-handedness.

Frequency-dependent variation could explain that the C-gene still exists at all.

Needless to say, the CC-genotype could have a great variety of results.

For further information, see the web page: http//:www.righthandlefthand.com
-

Is there anyone here who is educated and interested enough to ponder how this theory would relate to autistic-spectrum disorders in more detail?
I wouldn't know where to begin.
This is a request.

Well, I'm interested enough, if not educated enough...

I think that the corpus callosum dam in the brain-flow river is a very interesting thing to consider in relation to ASDs. This reminds of something I heard about it long ago that explains one aspect of why men and women converse differently: they say women have more connections between the right and left brain, in general, than men do. One side of her brain processes language and the other side motor skills like the physical act of talking. So more connections in the brain allow women in general to speak what they are thinking, almost at the moment they are thinking it up, before the thoughts are even completed - thinking out loud. Men often have to process what they hear, formulate a response, then send the package over the line to the other side to speak... meanwhile the woman has been thinking non-stop, he appears to have nothing to say, so she goes on, he has to try to catch up and can't get a word in edgewise. Arguments.

Anyway, so maybe NT's in general have the "process audio information" (understand speech language), "process visual information" (understand body language), and "find the appropriate stored response" right next to each other, and near (at least in the same hemisphere as) the the motor skills to emulate the behaviors now intuitively associated with the social situation. Whereas we have "over-think" and/or "emotional reaction" or any number of things separating those things from each other. And audio and visual far, far away from each other.

I don't know anything about the actual structure and location of these things in the brain, and I'm sure I've left a lot of things out of that equation, but the idea of the brain-distance factor, particularly the hemispheric division, playing a role is a really fascinating one. And I couldn't find that web page, but I'd love to see it.

The male-female neural difference theory is not my own - I read it years ago, I forget where - could be "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venues" or some such. And I think I may have misspoke - the theory does not say that the average man thinks slower than the average woman, but that he has to finish his thoughts before speaking them, whereas a woman more likely can speak her thoughts as she thinks them.

The audio-visual processing distance in ASDs vs. NTs was my theory, although I'm sure someone else has thought of it before me.

Cool - as I said, I figured it had been thought of before. Does that thread still exist? I'd like to see that conversation and how much into the theory it delved.

And not that it matters, but "[my] interpretation" of the neural differences in terms of thought-speech time is not my own - that's what I read about. Anyway, like any other male-female difference, the ± within each group may be large in comparison to the difference between groups, so that if it is true, millions of men would still be "faster" than millions of women, and one man may be "faster" than 99.99% of women.

And now that I think about it, my personal experiences in male-female differences should not be inferred to relate to anyone else's. I've been told in numerous situations and in numerous ways that I behave more like a man than a woman, but I've also been told as many times and in as many ways that I am very feminine... sometimes by the same person. A girly tomboy may be an oxymoron but that's who I am, so my male-female interaction experiences are definitely not the norm. But then again, I'm an Aspie, so by definition, none of my social interactions are "normal."

Anyway, back OT, I wonder if anyone has mapped neural pathways in ASDs vs NTs. I don't even know enough to know if it can be determined with any tests currently in existence, or whether it can be tested on living subjects (as in, not slicing up the brain.) I think I'm drawn to this line of thinking because I've always felt like I was wired so differently than NTs that I feel like it almost has to be physically different wiring, you know?

With the fairly new brain scan methods, one can witness in what areas of the brain activity rises when the subject is presented with any problem of the test-leader's choice.

One still has to consider how to interpret the results, of course, but this can be used to approximate localization of some centra.

Though that is still a long way from being a complete mapping of the neuro-pathways, of course.