Most active commenters
  • cwmoore(3)

←back to thread

A human-accelerated neuron type potentially underlying autism in humans

(academic.oup.com)
185 points ivewonyoung | 15 comments | 28 Sep 25 23:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.004s | source | bottom
Show context
agentcoops ◴[29 Sep 25 01:03 UTC] No.45409472[source]▶
There's an ambiguity in the title, reflected in some comments below. It can be understood either as the claim that "in a particular human being, to be intelligent as measured by IQ means that you are more likely to be autistic", suggesting for example a trade-off between social and general intelligence; or the claim that "the evolution of the human brain and so human intelligence as such, which characterizes both those of low and high IQ, entailed those genetic shifts that made autism a possibility for our species but not other primates." The paper argues a form of the latter.
replies(5): >>45409754 #>>45409793 #>>45410064 #>>45410925 #>>45412115 #
1. cwmoore ◴[29 Sep 25 02:01 UTC] No.45409754[source]▶
Thank you for the clarification. Can't read the paper.

Who was it that was quoted often a decade ago that described the intellectual variance difference between the sexes?

The research concluded that women are smarter (just kidding) that men have much greater variance while women are generally closer to the mean and one another in abilities.

Since differences between the sexes exist, I would also expect differences among the sexes to cluster for evolutionarily relevant reasons.

replies(5): >>45409818 #>>45409921 #>>45410441 #>>45411007 #>>45415278 #
2. zdragnar ◴[29 Sep 25 02:17 UTC] No.45409818[source]▶
Boys are diagnosed with autism 4 times more than girls by age 8. There's a certain amount of supposition that this is due in part or largely down to "boys being boys" type handwaving, though my two nephews are on the spectrum and neurodivergent behavior in them presented as distinctly different from simply being energetic (one being almost nonverbal). Though it's possible, it seems unlikely to me that there isn't actually a difference.

However, the "greater male variability hypothesis" in terms of IQ scores is not terribly well supported by studies, and the difference isn't significant enough to account for the 4:1 ratio of autism diagnoses. As such, I imagine there's more at play here.

replies(3): >>45409881 #>>45409926 #>>45410788 #
3. cwmoore ◴[29 Sep 25 02:30 UTC] No.45409881[source]▶
Personal experiences play important roles. As for the hypothesis, if not represented in studies, it is certainly reflected in penitentiaries.
4. hyperpallium2 ◴[29 Sep 25 02:42 UTC] No.45409921[source]▶
IANAG but the idea is that women get two copies of the X chromosome (XX), and men only one (XY). This explains why women have squared the colour blindness rates of men - women have to get two bad copies, men only one.

Many intelligence related genes are on the X chromosome, so it makes sense you get more variation in men. However, not all genes interact in this way.

replies(1): >>45410229 #
5. idiotsecant ◴[29 Sep 25 02:43 UTC] No.45409926[source]▶
I think boys just present symptoms that are more obvious. Girls with autism are very often much better at masking than boys are.Young girls also tend to fixate on more 'socially acceptable' topics that make that fixation less obvious
replies(3): >>45410819 #>>45411381 #>>45412922 #
6. ◴[29 Sep 25 04:02 UTC] No.45410229[source]▶
7. fraserphysics ◴[29 Sep 25 04:55 UTC] No.45410441[source]▶
I think it was Larry Summers.
8. zeroonetwothree ◴[29 Sep 25 06:10 UTC] No.45410788[source]▶
My niece has autism and it’s much more subtle than I’ve seen in boys. It was difficult to even get her diagnosed until teen years when the masking became much harder for her because of more complex social dynamics.
9. crooked-v ◴[29 Sep 25 06:18 UTC] No.45410819{3}[source]▶
Also, 'better at masking' there isn't necessarily inherent by gender; it could well be a consequence of young girls in general being put through more social training than boys.
10. jibal ◴[29 Sep 25 06:56 UTC] No.45411007[source]▶
It was Larry Summers, who was frequently mischaracterized as having claimed that men were smarter than women. But he was far from innocent--it was one of the worst cases ever of failing to read the room--a room full of extremely accomplished and intelligent women ... and his speculations severely failed to account for cultural factors. It rationalized the status quo and suggested that nothing could change it. The history of women in STEM since then has refuted those speculations ... though the attack on "DEI" is turning the progress around.

> Since differences between the sexes exist, I would also expect differences among the sexes to cluster for evolutionarily relevant reasons

And what is one supposed to do with this vague generalization? Mostly it used to reinforce biases.

11. ljsprague ◴[29 Sep 25 08:07 UTC] No.45411381{3}[source]▶
Are symptoms not the sole means of diagnosis? So if girls present less symptoms then aren't they therefore less autistic? Or, alternatively, if they present different symptoms then perhaps they have something else?
replies(1): >>45412477 #
12. idiotsecant ◴[29 Sep 25 11:38 UTC] No.45412477{4}[source]▶
No. That's the whole point of masking. It's doing social behavior 'in software' instead of doing it 'in hardware' like everyone else. An alcoholic who is high functioning is still an alcoholic.
13. danaris ◴[29 Sep 25 12:33 UTC] No.45412922{3}[source]▶
Girls are much more likely to be socialized to mask before the parents or children have a clue that's what's happening.

Boys are much more likely to be allowed to "express themselves," act out, etc.

replies(1): >>45434877 #
14. dekhn ◴[29 Sep 25 15:49 UTC] No.45415278[source]▶
Larry Summers:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/us/harvard-chief-defends-...

He clarified his intent: https://www.harvard.edu/president/news-speeches-summers/2005...

15. cwmoore ◴[01 Oct 25 06:22 UTC] No.45434877{4}[source]▶
Stereotype echo, ok.