I've been trying to tell everybody for decades that my problem is that my brain is too damn big, but they all laughed at me!
But, I wonder if it is at all related to Neanderthal lineages. They had bigger brains and were basically autists: the species. Since we are a bastard of them and early Sapiens, maybe some of us present with more of their genome than others?
And it seems that the prevalence of autism is actually fairly even, but might actually be lower among white people.
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/addm-community-report/spot...
I posit that the "runtime environment" i.e. epigentics, among other things, has a far traceable cause than the smidge of related species. The nature and consequences of autism land me to believe that it's more likely a consequence of a compiler error, although shoddy source code could be a secondary/compounding cause for it. Take Down's Syndrome as an prime example of genetic disorder, and it becomes clear why such categorization does not work for autism: autism is too broad, it describes the effect rather than cause, and I'd argue that autism is far less debilitating (pronounced) and definitely not inherited.
Autism being "too broad" is why it doesn't have a genetic cause?
Autism's nomenclature not being descriptive enough is why it doesn't have a genetic cause?
Autism not being as debilitating as DS is why it doesn't have a genetic cause? (developmental logic aside, are you familiar with Type 2 and Type 3 autistic individuals?).
Extra dings for not for over-use of CS analogy, "unwarranted fixation", and "we no longer live in the world".
Analogies aside, they were arguing it is a mix of genetic and epigenetic factors and that, generally, we only pay attention to the genetics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics_of_autism
I think the real problem here is this can potentially be a politically heated take. I don't believe it is in this case, or they were making an effort to not make it so. Of course, that is just my reading of it.
You would also expect autism to be nearly completely absent in Africa, East Asia, and native Oceania and North and South American populations.
I’m not an expert, but I don’t believe any of that is true.
It’s a fun “theory” but it doesn’t survive even casual analysis.
(I don't know whether that's the case or not.)
Neanderthal genes have had a long, long time to do so.
(Note the key "favourable")
(IIRC this is why Asians have straight hair.)