←back to thread

185 points ivewonyoung | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | 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 #
1. msteffen ◴[] No.45410925[source]
That’s interesting, thanks for posting an explanation.

There is a parallel strain of argument for the former:

- https://www.tinygnomes.com/qwiki.cgi?mode=previewSynd&uuid=B...

- https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-06-brain-overgrowth-dict...

(I have my own theory, which is that a large brain increases the risk of ADHD rather than autism—a larger flow of thoughts and ideas requires more executive function to manage, and therefore more executive function is required to achieve the same attention span—but that ADHD is a kind of multiplier for autism, because social situations are more challenging to navigate if you can’t reliably stay focused on the social interaction you’re having.)