Hacker News Reader

I’m going to guess gossip to that degree isn’t just an American thing. I’m 100% with you, though. My oldest daughter is autistic. She’s an amazing little kiddo, and I’m super proud of her. Her therapy has really helped her, but I’m worried for her. Society is going to black ball her and it’s fucking stupid. The parents are the worst too. My daughter has been friends with a handful of kids since she was 2, and, after her diagnosis, she started not getting invited to parties and other gatherings “because we don’t want to cause her stress”. Any parent reading this that decides to not invite a kid because they’re autistic — here’s a big fuck you. Don’t try to pretend you’re doing my kid a favor.

so what should they do? explain how they should think about inviting your kid to events that they might worry would be too much? It's an awkward conversation for them to have too. What is the consideration? is this different for every autistic kid?

No 2 autistic people are the same. For example, my girlfriend is sensitive to certain sounds. Our daughter appears to have the same issue, but we don't know for sure yet. I learned to get less sensitive to it over the years.

As for your question: invite the kid and take their needs into account? Is it really that hard to grasp? I don't get it. Some kids have an allergy. Some kids have lice. Some kids have tamper tantrums. Some kids have farts. Some kids have skin infections. Some kids pee in their pants. Some kids have ADHD. Some kids have.. well I guess you get the point by now.

Try out the children playing at your (or their) premises, see if they get along with each other without too much hassle. Make clear rules. Explain things in a positive way. If it doesn't work out, be honest about it to the parents. Don't make it as if "you want to do your kid a favor". You're doing it for selfish reasons because you cannot handle the kid. That's fine (though not ideal), but do say that. Cause that's actually what you're really saying in a kind of nice package which is as fake as you can make it.

Yeah, I don't want kids with lice, skin infections or temper tantrums over at my house. So I'm not sure the burden is on me to take their needs into account.

What they should do is invite the person and the person can decide if it’s too much for them. In this case, my wife and I are perfectly capable deciding if she’s not going to handle it well. If she was older she would be perfectly capable of deciding if she can handle it or not. The thing that makes me the most upset is that the person having the party decides that it’s too much for another person, and then acts like they’re doing you a favor. Don’t take the decision away from the person.

> Do we have nothing better to do than judge others?

You just related a story where you sat and judged two people for over an hour! You tell us why you did it if you want to know why people do it!

That sounded like an observation, not a judgement.

"Do we have nothing better" does sound like a judgement.

> most neurotypicals would refuse to be reincarnated as autistic if given the choice.

The autistic people you know are the lucky ones. 80% of people with autism have intellectual disabilities(low iq) and as many as 50% are non-verbal.

It's more than not wanting to be someone perceived as quirky or strange.

> 80% of people with autism have intellectual disabilities(low iq) and as many as 50% are non-verbal.

That's because diagnosis is geared to those people. Adults who cope relatively well in most situations don't know they have autism, don't seek a diagnosis, and there isn't a dx service available to them if they do know what to ask for.

Females in particular, are badly underdiagnosed.

>evolutionary explanation

Hmm... I hope someone more knowledgeable than me in biology jumps in to lend their thought, but I'm extremely skeptical of takes like this - another one I see a lot online is that somehow homosexuality has "evolutionary explanations." It doesn't jive with my understanding of how evolution works.

Statements like that seem to imply there is some sort of intelligent force or plan behind evolution, when instead it is "directed" by noise, not "reacting to" noise.

As far as I know there's no way for evolution to "sprinkled a bit of autism" across a population for an increased chance of population survival - I don't see how such a mechanism could exist.

That's not to say that autism doesn't somehow improve society or populations, maybe it does, I don't know. But I don't think we can point to evolution as the mechanism.

You're right and evolution is easily misunderstood as deterministic when it is only the result of random mutations in a population over time. Every variation you see does not mean it has a positive evolutionary advantage, only that those it wasn't prohibitive to reproduction

Well, I think one issue is that evolution acts on base-pair mutations and not traits. So (to wildly make a possibility up) suppose that mutations X, Y, and Z are each individually beneficial, but having all of them at once gives you autism. Then the population probably converges on a distribution that has some nonzero probability of X, Y, and Z.

That’s another 100% plausible evolutionary explanation. Autism is caused by genes that correlate with intelligence, which is positive for evolutionary fitness. If you get a certain mixture of those genes, you get autism. That won’t stop the genes from propagating though.

Evolutionary pressures aren't as simple as "if it lowers your chance of reproducing it's bad." You can read "The Selfish Gene" for more info.

Consider a gene that promotes compassion, selflessness and sharing. While it may lower your individual fitness, groups with some individuals with this gene may fare better as a whole.

Same as autism. For example, say autistic people see connections that other people don't. Having a low rate of "different thinkers" is positive for the group as a whole, even if the individuals may be disadvantaged in other ways.

Why would an individuals fertility be increased because the fertility of his group is increased? The gene would not propagate unless he has more children than his peers. There is no evidence of evolution by natural selection to begin with, though.

The gene can be propagated by individuals who did not express it - it could be sex-linked, it could be recessive, it could require two or three conditions to be met, etc. (Also, propagation doesn't require 'more children than his peers', it just requires children that go on to reproduce).

If the group with the trait has on average a slightly higher reproduction rate than a group without, that is sufficient.

This doesn't mean that any particular individual will have a higher rate (although most will).

One hypothesis for the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire is that Christianity provided social services that improved reproductive rates by a couple of percentage points. Maintain that over a particularly stressful upheaval in the social order and you don't need many generations to significantly outbreed your rivals.

> Christianity provided social services that improved reproductive rates

Social services, and perhaps this might have some impact:

"In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence."

https://www.catholic.com/tract/birth-control

> As far as I know there's no way for evolution to "sprinkled a bit of autism" across a population for an increased chance of population survival - I don't see how such a mechanism could exist.

Not strictly autism, but sickle cell anemia is a disease caused by carrying two copies of a recessive gene. If you have two copies of the recessive gene, you suffer from a debilitating illness. If you carry one copy of the normal gene and one copy of the disease causing recessive version, you have increased resistance to malaria, which has killed more humans than everything else combined. So evolution definitely does contribute to the prevalence of sickle cell anemia. Almost everyone in the US we suffers from sickle cell anemia is of sun Saharan African descent, where malaria is especially relevant.

While autism certainly isn't as simple as sickle cell anemia, there does exist the possibility that genetic components which contribute to autism can also contribute to other, more positive traits with fewer risk factors.

It's a normal thing all over the world. The answer unfortunately is yes, most people are shallow and vindictive in a negligent sort of way. There's a saying that great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss things, and small minds discuss people. By this metric the majority undoubtedly possess small minds.

> I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an evolutionary explanation for its prevalence.

It's kind of a corollary to the No Free Lunch theorom, really. The genes that cause autism in one configuration are probably vital in most other configurations and turning them off willy-nilly would likely be bad.

>> Do we have nothing better to do than judge others?

That's kind of what you're doing right now. We use judgement all the time but the definition of acceptable criteria is not universal nor static. You can work to change the narrative but you can't fix the game.

Is America unusual in this regard?

No, and ironically the poster of that comment is doing the exact same thing, judging people for judging people.

Judging is a natural, normal, unavoidable thing we all do.

I’m sure that exists everywhere, but if the magnitude is greater in America, I’d guess it’s because we live in a culture of hyper-optimization. Autism is just another thing that can be deemed as sub-optimal. It doesn’t even help that we’re more individualistic, because at least in conforming cultures there are simple rules that you can follow for social acceptance.