The blogger Santoculto, recently mentioned an article claiming autism genetic variants are linked to high IQ. This is consistent with my view that autistic traits are more highly evolved and thus are more common among higher social classes and probably the highly evolved Mongoloid race. By contrast, my theory also states that schizophrenic traits are more primitive, and thus linked to lower social class and peoples of sub-Saharan ancestry.
Although it’s important to note that autistics themselves tend to have low IQ, though their IQ distribution is more variable, so autistics are over-represented among both the most brilliant and the most retarded. But the key point is that autistics tend to have high IQ relatives, suggesting that the genetic variants related to autism are somehow linked to high IQ. The common link is probably nerdiness. Both high IQ people and autistic people tend to be nerdy, so genetic variants for nerdiness cause autism and IQ to be genetically related.
This is consistent with my view that autistic traits are more highly evolved and thus are more common among higher social classes and probably the highly evolved Mongoloid race
The unscientific view, that is. “Highly evolved” is a meaningless non-science term.
The link is also very small.
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201512a.html
I’m sure this will get excused as ‘many genes of small effect,’ of course.
I explained the meaning here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/10/11/is-evolution-progressive/comment-page-1/
Your critiques are not original. Stephen Jay Gould blathered on the same nonsense in 1981.
yeah gravity is totally unoriginal too. Newton came up with that idea a long time ago. but maybe he ripped it off from Galileo.
so now pumpkin person is going to jump out of an airplane without a parachute, and leap tall buildings in a single bound.
None of that “explanation” has anything to do with the scientific definitions of the terms, pumpkin.
What you apparently mean by your definition is ‘more complex,’ which is not the same thing.
I doubt the critiques are original, because the critiques are derived from basic science found in HS and collegiate textbooks.
Complexity has nothing to do with it. A more evolved organism can be less complex.
Anyways this thread is about autism. Stay on topic please.
Then you mean “more recently evolved.” Still not the same thing. Still not science.
Autism dx has risen so much so fast that the risk factors may be garbage.
It has nothing to do with how recently evolved either though that’s correlated. I don’t have to convince you it’s science. Actual scientists have praised my theory though the power of this blog is such that people will praise anything I say.
Then you’re just extending primitive versus derived traits to the level of an organism…which still isn’t the same thing and is pretty speculative, anyway. One thing’s for sure: not science.
Seems pretty scientific to me.
A derived trait is not a more evolved trait. It is a trait not possessed by the common ancestor. The two terms are not synonymous. So if it seems scientific it’s because you aren’t that familiar with science.
That is to say, it is not possible, based on two current organisms and the fact that one has an obvious derived trait and the other retains a primitive trait to conclude one organism is more evolved, because many millions of years separate both organisms from their common ancestor. The other organism likely has many derived traits, regardless of its external appearance.
That is why one cannot talk about high and low evolution with regard to current species, and especially with regard to intraspecies traits, without sounding foolish.
But Swank, the only one sounding foolish is you.
So foolish that — yet again — biologists agree with my characterization and rightly consider terms like ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ evolved ridiculous.
Swank, you’re stupid and dumb.
I’m a biologist and what I consider ridiculous is you.
Biologists in fact do use the term “more evolved”:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/407705/chimps-are-more-evolved-than-humans/
Sure you are. (I hope you are not).
That article doesn’t seem like it was written by a biologist. And the fact that HBDers — like yourself — often repeat several basic misconceptions about evolution casts doubt on your claim.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php
To make viewing easier: MISCONCEPTION: A long branch on a phylogeny indicates that the taxon has changed little since it diverged from other taxa.
Bingo.
Specifically, note the fact that even on trees where some X trait is analyzed for degrees of ‘derived’ or ‘primitive,’ it’s not an all inclusive listing of all an organism’s traits.
Swank,
Read the link on evolutionary progress Pumpkin provided. He precisely explains that that’s NOT a misconception.
The idea that it’s a misconception is the misconception. But what do I know? I’m only a graduate level biology professor.
Or at least you say you’re one on a blog.
Feel free to find an actual biologist sanctioning the use of “higher” and “lower” evolved, besides “yourself.”
no one is a graduate level biology professor in the us who isn’t also an undergraduate level biuology professor.
so i’m guessing you teach at the university of Papue New Guinea?
yeah.
the only thing of substance Kate’s provided in all her comments is evidence of her stupidity and ignorance.
Swank reminds me of every affirmative action student I’ve ever had. I see them on the first day of class swaggering in like they own the place, taken up seats from incredibly brilliant students who deserve to be at a top ranked university, but don’t get in because we make room for morons like Swank.
Kate reminds me of someone who can’t produce a biologist who condones using the terms “higher” and “lower” evolved.
The idea that it’s a misconception is the misconception.
Correct. But in Swank’s defense, even many brilliant biologists make the same error.
LOL Kate!
You’d probably think I’m one of those affirmative action students like Swank since from a distance I look black because I got the dark skin and the kinky hair.
But come a little closer and you’ll see I have an East Asian face & you’ll know I’d be acing the class!
right Kate and i play an African dictator on the internet.
sometimes i play a dead Argentine dictator.
You also play a BGI participant!
unfortunate for your worldview i play myself as a BGI volunteer.
it’s got nothing to do with “autism”, because autism is a bullshit diagnosis > 90% of the time.
1. a chart going back to 1960 for California: http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Images/graphs/2002/2002-10califautism.gif
2. from an advocacy organization https://autismspeaksblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/prevalence-graph1.jpg
maybe parents who are smarter are more likely to get their kids diagnosed?
the more interesting question is are those shared genes the same shared genes in Scotland and Australia? these are similar but not identical cultures. the technique doesn’t identify any genes only that there is similarity.
yeah Mongoloids are so highly evolved that they eat dogs.
i can’t wait until the British can evolve to their level.
oh and remember the reason why Taiwan and Nigeria were similarly undeveloped 75 years ago was because the Chinese were “too evolved for their own good”.
that’s the PP theory anyway.
oh and also PP doesn’t have a drop of Asian ancestry. 😉
Nevermind also that “complexity” in and of itself has a subjective, human-tinged component to it.
The idea that schizophrenia is a disease of genetically primitive people & races & that autism is a disease for the more highly evolved is offensive, yet fascinating.
and the exact opposite of the truth fucktard.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6609726
both are diseases of civilization. all mental illnesses are. just like obesity, type ii diabetes, cvd, hypertension, the ‘rhoids, gout, etc.
you and pumpkin should toss each other’s salads.
Yet schizophrenia is seen as a Jewish disease.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.560128
I think schizophrenia is part of a greater trend. Adjusted for intelligence, schizophrenic races seem to do better in America and are more represented at the top. We have black ceos while no Inuits/native Americans/Mexican-Americans in anything influential in business. Mexican/native Americans have contributed little to American culture compared to blacks and have done little to capture American imagination.
A similar dichotamy exists between whites and east asians in America. Technically, east asians are smarter and yet the bamboo ceiling does include a lack of schizophrenia. The funny thing is how Indian Americans have become celebrities in America and yet east Asians haven’t really cracked it yet.
Type in “parents were both engineers” in google and you’ll find biographies of artists as well as doctors. Schizophrenia/autism divide has little to do with iq but perhaps more with race.
Schizoids are liberal sociopaths, and autistoids are harmless mental patients. So yes, East Asians and Native Americans are less socially dysfunctional, grounded, adapted for civilization, where as the schizoids are adapted for extinction. Jews and blacks are by far the 2 most dysfunctional groups in America.
No Indian American did become as famous as Psy and this year another Korean will make her American debut, one of them.
Pumpkin,
schizophrenia virus or metamorphic genes co-evolved with human brain.
Schizophrenia linked with little brain in born, exactly opposed with autism.
Autism related specifically with nerdy smart types, but there are other types of highly smart people. Seems autism is a form of giftedness with higher costs, while schizophrenia is more complex. I think higher non-cultural creative classes are more prone to have autistic kids because two causes, natural susceptibilities and the fact that highly academic educated people tend to have kids later. Schizophrenia is a direct and universal result of human brain evolution while autism can be more “recent”. For both, the upper and bottom in social conditions will expected.
Albert Einsteins own son had schizophrenia, which really puts a dent on PP’s theory.
Pumpkin, the case of Terence Tao and his family lends a bit of credence to your idea that autistic individuals tend to have high-IQ relatives. Terence (not autistic) is a Fields Medalist mathematician who as an 8 year old received a 760 on the Math SAT back in the early 80s–one of only two kids under 10 years old to do so in the history of CTY, an American program that studies exceptional mathematical talent. He went on to receive his PhD in math from Princeton at age 20 and has since gone on to solve some of math’s hardest problems. Anyway, it turns out that his two brothers are also talented in their own right–his brother Nigel is a Google engineer (see below) with a reported IQ of 180, while Trevor–the autistic one–is a classical composer, mathematician, and champion chess player. As an article in The Australian recounts, Trevor was diagnosed with autism at age 2 and was then referred to the Autistic Children’s Association of Australia, which then found special teachers to guide this gifted, yet also impaired, little boy. It seems that Trevor was the archetypical autistic patient: never made eye contact, didn’t speak, performed repetitive routines and became furious if those were interrupted–and needed cue cards to learn to dress himself and speak. But, he became a master musician and earned a PhD in math–probably both in spite of and because of his autism. The Tao family is a good case study for giftedness and autism because, well, they’ve been made into a case study: When the young Terence was found to be gifted, the Australian educational system, unprepared for the task of helping him, documented his progress…and then the rest of his brothers including Trevor, the autistic one. Here’s the link to that article which details the boys’ history.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/beautiful-minds/story-e6frg8h6-1111114147837
Terence Tao was actually on one of Steve Colbert’s last shows, in November of last year. He is not autistic but seems every bit the stereotypical mathematician–nervous, apprehensive and awkward, though it’s easy to be thrown off by the impish Colbert. He reportedly turned down 8 previous requests to be on Colbert’s show–perhaps because appearing on a talk show would be far outside the comfort zone for his personality type:
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/6wtwlg/terence-tao
That is indeed an interesting case study, especially since the intelligence in that family is so extreme. I’ll have to read up on them.
In light of your most recent post, where you assert that East Asians are less creative, I have to point out here that the Taos are East Asian. And Terence Tao was dubbed “The Mozart of Mathematics” by the NY Times and is often called the greatest living mathematician. He’s pretty much won every award in math–Breakthrough Prize, Clay Research, Royal Academy, Ramanujan Award, and of course the Fields Medal–often called the Nobel of mathematics. And a complete unknown in the world of mathematics, Yitang Zhang of the University of New Hampshire, made a major breakthrough in the Twin Primes Conjecture that Berkeley mathematician Edward Frenkel said was “Renaissance in its beauty”. On a more general point, I think you often go on what the mainstream press says are the super-bright ones–people like Bill Gates and Oprah, when in fact there are much smarter and more creative people who simply weren’t focused on making money or achieving fame. In other words, yes those people are smart, but I’m not sure they’re the archetypes for great intelligence. Gates never made the best software, but got aggressive salespeople to push MSDOS platform. Oprah needed Donahue to create the market for juicy, salacious TV talk shows. She says as much. Of course, she can take credit for growing her brand–herself as the interviewer–but her target audience–middle age women–were always going to identify with her more strongly than the old, washed-up Phil Donahue.
East Asians can be extremely creative, they’re just typically not as creative as you would expect given their IQs
That is they are smarter than whites, yet whites have probably invented more, discovered more, created more etc
But I haven’t done a systematic analysis
I write a lot about rich and powerful people because as a social Darwinist they fascinate me and because I’m now a celebrity myself, but I realize many brilliant people do not pursue wealth or power.
The smartest person I ever knew is a nobody working in an average job
How about the schizo John Nash?
On average, people, on average…
Pumpkin should learn to specify their theories.
Some important informations,
the idea that autism not correlated with creativity is wrong, because many them indeed have very higher levels of creativity. Creativity is multidimensional like intelligence. Some traits of creativity can be deficient in ”autistic people”, but other traits, many times will be very developed. Global creativity deficits is common in so called ”neurotypicals”.
Autistics have problems with social interactions not only because they are the problem, but specially because common people also have difficulties to understand people who are not similar from them. Lack of real empathy. People self project itself as ”empathetic approach”.
”Autism” share many gifted traits with non-autistic (real gifted and not only a higher achievers) gifted people, as intense inner world, overexcitabilities (higher sensitivity), intelectual and or scientific interests (while common people have social interests), super specialization. They are as slightly savant people with high to lower mental retardation combined with very specialized intelligence type.
Schizophrenia seems relate more with personality (a extension of intelligence) while autism seems relate more with cognitive characteristics. This explain why schizophrenia is not directly relate with higher intelligence.
Its theory ”autism is a higher class stuff, schizophrenia is a lower class stuff” is partially correct, despising simplistic approach. More educated people tend to have kids later, it increase the chances to have a ”autistic” children. Some types of intelligent people (and normal ones) tend to be more sexually androginous and mate more today than in the past. Autism correlate with inverted sexuality, higher rates of homossexuals and lesbians among them. Scientific and engineer ones who are above income are more suscetible to have autistic genes than other people.
But, remember, are statistics, many schizophrenic people are born in wealthy families. I think, to both cases, autistics and schizophrenics will be found more in upper and lower classes but, on average, in different occupations. Schizos tend to be more artistic and autistics tend to be more scientifics.
Schizophrenic spectrum ”disturb” more the routine of people while autism spectrum are less problematic about it.
Most evolved mean ”have more benefic mutations” like white northern european people compared with aborigene people or with subsaharian.
”very specialized intelligence type”
…that iq many times can’t measure.
http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Ruthsatz-Urbach-2012.pdf
I think that any type of neuroatypicality is going to be more prevalent the further you get from IQ 100. The IQ 100 folks have the lowest rate of any neuroatypicality, while the IQ 50 folks are prone to Down Syndrome and the IQ 150 folks are prone to autism/bipolar/whatever else.
Interesting.
but i think it is more like the furthur one gets from ’90-110 IQ band’ which is considered the average.
This and above comment of mine is a reply to SC.