Nature Special: The Autism Enigma | Hacker News Reader

Nature Special: The Autism Enigma

nature.com

55 pointstokenadult9 comments

I thought the most interesting piece in this series was the article about how autism can be a positive advantage in some areas of human activity, including science.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7371/full/479033a...

It reminds me of Temple Grandin’s line: “Who do you think made the first stone spear? That wasn't the yakkity yaks sitting around the campfire. It was some Asperger sitting in the back of a cave figuring out how to chip rocks into spearheads.”

Nah, the spear was probably invented by some kind of ancient Feynman, who also got all the girls.

I have two ASD sons, both very "high functioning" -- and I don't mean "high functioning asperger's", I mean high functioning people. I have always told them that their various issues are two-edged swords. This was a major cornerstone of raising them to cope effectively with being so different from the norm. FWIW, here are some things I wrote 500 million years ago on the topic (probably full of dead links and things I don't recall saying): http://www.kidslikemine.com/aspie.shtml

You have to be careful taking this line of reasoning too far. For some, autism is completely debilitating and offers no upside--not to mention that it can have an overwhelmingly negative toll on family members, health care providers and law enforcement officials.

Autism sounds like truly a bad thing, truly a disease or bad health condition. But some of what the psychology profession considers to be in the autism "range", like Asperger's, instead sounds an awful lot to me like someone who's just smart and intellectual, and actually has a better/higher-functioning mind, than the average person. This would seem to be borne out by the fact that these "conditions" are more prevalent in scientists, engineers and their children. From my perspective, yes, people who have a much more powerful mind, greater analytical abilities, people who can think visually, three-dimensionally, hyper-logically, etc. are going to sound/look/act strange to people who don't do these things and don't have these abilities. But that doesn't mean it's bad. Or rather, it doesn't mean the "strange" person has something wrong or non-ideal about them -- it may be the "normal" person who's defective or non-ideal.

I understand, I think, what you're saying - that a lot of what is perceived as "wrong" with a person with Asperger's is simply a matter of differing perspective and differing levels/types of comprehension.

In some ways, I agree. I think a lot of the quirks in these cases aren't problems, just differences. However, that doesn't explain all of it.

For instance, what about the problems that many on the autism spectrum have with various types of sensory integration? It is often not simply a dislike of loud noises or certain textures of foods, but a physiological response to them, and one that can't always be re-trained.

Or, taking it one step further, I've heard from several people who have or whose children have Turette's Syndrome that it shares so many symptoms and similarities with Asperger's that it feels like it should be on the autism spectrum, itself - though it's currently not.

Sensory processing issues, tics, stimming, etc. can often be controlled to an extent, but not overcome.

Should a healthy brain that just works a bit differently still have these issues? Should it be able to adapt and cope with them? Should a more highly functional brain be more flexible in this regard, or less? I honestly don't know. Maybe our flexibility can be attributed more to our lack of perception rather than an abundance of it.

I think it's interesting how the focus of the Nature articles is on elucidating the process by which autism develops and affects people, and not on whatever coping mechanisms there are for people on ASD or their relatives. I don't think it is a bad thing, just a particular focus of their research.

On the one hand, it is immensely important to understand the biological basis of autism. But on the other, they say autism is not understood nearly well enough now, and there are many people on autism spectrum and their relatives/friends who need reasonable advice now, grounded in proper scientific research. Advice for high-functioning ASD people/relatives would presumably talk about developing social skills, coping behaviours, and whatever else is needed for them to function well in the wider society. Identifying the biological basis of ASD seems to be a long-term research programme with little payoff in the immediate future.

It's not that I think it's wrong to focus on the biology of it, it's just that they seem to completely skip the psychology aspect of ASD that is probably just as important.

I'm surprised there isn't more discussion (in general, on the internet) on the relationship between the autistic spectrum and programmers.

Because it's just bad science.

To quote from the article:

"But autism researchers Christopher Jarrold and David Routh at the University of Bristol, UK, pointed out that Baron-Cohen reported the analysis of data only for engineers, not for the other occupations surveyed. After analysing the same data, they found that fathers of children with autism were more likely to work in medicine, science and accountancy, as well as engineering, and less likely to have manual occupations. They suggested that these fathers were simply more likely to have reached a higher level of education."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com