←back to thread

185 points ivewonyoung | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.42s | source
Show context
agentcoops ◴[] 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 #
cwmoore ◴[] 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 #
1. hyperpallium2 ◴[] 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 #
2. ◴[] No.45410229[source]