Could Assortative Mating Explain Autism? 286
clm1970 writes "Researcher Simon Baron-Cohen has put forth the theory that 'how we mate and marry' could explain the increase in rates of Autism Spectrum Disorders, particularly Asperger's. When two technically minded people marry and have children, so the provocative theory goes, they are more apt to produce a child who crosses the line into mild autism."
but... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To break the slashdot-ism: if that were the case the first generation of geeks would never have had *any* offspring. Geeks take to coupling just like everything else they do, they either stumble at it, or become avid-amateurs until they succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:but... (Score:4, Funny)
Of course you're right.
Whereas, Apple fanboys...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but since mac fanboi's are faggots they can't reproduce.
Sure they can, turkey basters!
Re: (Score:3)
Shhhh.. You're ruining the fascination created by the article. Direct quote from it: "The theory is still largely speculation, shored up by seductive anecdotes"
I kid you not.
Kid. Ha. I made a funny.
Re: (Score:2)
But isn't the plural of anecdote data?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seductive anecdotes?
Dear Penthouse Forum,
I wish to provide your esteemed publication with further data points on the "Once you go black" hypothesis....
Re:but... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's only true during high school and college, strangely enough when the 6 digit salary starts rolling in your average geeks attractiveness coefficient increases by 2 orders of magnitude.....
Obviously I'm not suggesting correlation implies causation but never the less.
Re:but... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's only true during high school and college, strangely enough when the 6 digit salary starts rolling in your average geeks attractiveness coefficient increases by 2 orders of magnitude.....
Obviously I'm not suggesting correlation implies causation but never the less.
To be honest, I think at some point geeks are put in a situation where they want to become social around that salary level. They enter the work force with jobs that accept them for who they are and a sort of Peterson Principle thing happens when they get promoted to senior guy. Their incompetent at the interfacing and mentoring thing, except they actually want to do them since they actually respect the more technical project managers, and care about showing the young-ins the ropes, so they learn to be competent at them. As a side effect of this, and also being older and more confidant because they care less about being awkward. As a nice side effect of all this, the ladies that are initially attracted to geeks for their money find their personalities worth sticking around for.
Re: (Score:2)
Peter Principle, not Peterson Principle.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that the cliché is that geeks never have an opportunity to mate. Copulating for recreation and copulating for reproduction are two different things, and adult geeks are good target for the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that explains it. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That became less true when geeks started to make serious money, but it's still an issue, yes.
Re:well... (Score:4, Funny)
Quantum tunnelling?
Re:well... (Score:5, Funny)
Publicity whore for a "scientist" (Score:5, Interesting)
The theory of "assortative mating" was first put forth by neuroscientist Simon Baron-Cohen, a leading autism researcher and something of a rock star in the field. He's the first cousin of comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, and like his cousin, his prolific work tends toward the out-of-the-box. Combine that with his outspokenness — uncommon for a scientist — and it's clear why at a recent international conference in San Diego, he was "frequently mobbed by fellow attendees and treated with near universal adulation," Warner writes.
I don't have proof but this guy looks and sounds like he's just putting for a controversial theory to be controversial and get his name in the papers. I wouldn't give much credit here.
Re:Publicity whore for a "scientist" (Score:5, Interesting)
Simon Baron-Cohen has made many a theory on the etiology of Autism. And all of them have fallen by the way side.
I don't understand why he is regarded as a scientist since he keep coming out with these stupid ideas.
A few years ago it was a "Too neanderthal brain". Then a few years later it was "Too much male hormone in the uterus". And now it is is this. *sigh*
He comes up with one idea, and once that is shown to be false, he just throws a new one out there.
As a professional in this area. And as someone with autism. I totally disregard anything and everything he has to say.
Re: (Score:2)
what is your take on the idea that vitamin D deficiency plays a part in autism spectrum disorders?
I recently read a fairly convincing article on the subject, but don't know anyone smart enough to discuss it with.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure it's the opposite: Autism(spectrum anyway) people are attracted to technical things instead of social interaction. In urban and sub-urban settings, most of those things are done inside - computing, electronics, etc. As such, they spend more time indoors than other kids, resulting in lower vitamin D levels.
Kind of obvious, actually...
Re: (Score:2)
it's interesting that the Somali language has no word for autism, they call it the American disease, but I don't think there will ever be a "The Cause" with autism spectrum diso
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So he can only be regarded as a scientist if he puts forth ideas that check out. I don't think you understand how science works (Observe, theorize, test, repeat.) His contribution so far: We know some things that do not cause autism and we have more things to test.
Re:Publicity whore for a "scientist" (Score:4, Informative)
I see your point, but the counter is that a scientist puts forth ideas with some merit and actually tests them. If you just toss ideas out into the world, you're not a scientist, you're a philosopher. If you just toss ideas out into the world without any regard to reasonableness, you're a crackpot or a crank. For example, if you postulate that long ago some powerful being threw a bunch of people into volcanoes and that those souls or whatever now plague mankind and are responsible for every bad thing that happens to you, you are not a scientist.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides, other *actual* research seems to contradict his theory. Siblings have a 25% greater chance of having autism than unrelated people if one is diagnosed, and identical twins have 50% greater... but fraternal twins have a 33% greater chance. That's pretty much a dead ringer proof that it is a mix of both genetics and environment-- otherwise fraternal twins would have exactly the same chance as non-twin siblings.
Re: (Score:3)
Siblings have a 25% greater chance ... fraternal twins have a 33% greater chance. That's pretty much a dead ringer proof that it is a mix of both genetics and environment
Not proof... it could also have to do with the environment of the sperm, which might change in the months or years between non-twin siblings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly, intriguing, but not "dead ringer proof". It could also be that fraternal twins are more likely to be tested for autism if their twin is diagnosed than a non-twin sibling. You have to keep in mind that those statistics aren't giving chances of _having_ autism. Instead, they're giving changes for being _diagnosed_ with autism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Simon Baron-Cohen has made many a theory on the etiology of Autism. And all of them have fallen by the way side.
I don't understand why he is regarded as a scientist since he keep coming out with these stupid ideas.
A few years ago it was a "Too neanderthal brain". Then a few years later it was "Too much male hormone in the uterus". And now it is is this. *sigh*
He comes up with one idea, and once that is shown to be false, he just throws a new one out there.
As a professional in this area. And as someone with autism. I totally disregard anything and everything he has to say.
If his hypothesis is correct, we should observe that the increase in autism is among the children of paired geeks. Is there any evidence to suggest such?
Can *any* demographic be associated with parents of autistic children?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree for there to be science you have to come up with a lot of hypothesis.
Some of these will be promoted to theories.
Some of these will not be falsified.
So just because you'r hypothesis/theory fails at one of these points, it doesn't mean that you aren't a scientist, or you shouldn't be allowed to come up with something new. Of course not.
There are people who claim that watching to much TV causes autism. Or mothers not showing enough emotion cause autism. Or vaccinations cause autism. (All of these are f
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He ADMITS to being right ONLY 1% OF THE TIME. How is it possible we continued to pay attention to him!?!
Re: (Score:2)
Have you heard of this schmuck "Einstein!?!" He EVEN SAID "I think and think for months and years. Ninety-nine times, the conclusion is false. The hundredth time I am right.
Even worse, he got the "I before E" rule wrong *twice* in an 8-letter name!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but all Simon Baron-Cohen's hypothesis are just variants on the same idea.
"It happens in utero. for THIS reason"
Ehm, no it doesn't
"Ok, then it happens in utero for THIS reason"
Ehm, no it doesn't
"ok, well, what about in utero for THIS reason"
He doesn't change his idea. All he does is pop up every few years with a slight tweak on what has already been disproven. (Again, this can be valid. But in his case it just... isn't).
Re: (Score:2)
He should have discarded this idea already. The problem is that he doesn't discard them.
Re: (Score:2)
For proof, you could check out any other news article with him in it.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, he trying to prove that he is funnier than his cousin.
Re: (Score:2)
Except... I wouldn't have thought this theory was controversial. Maybe to Autism researchers it is, but to the vast unwashed masses of laypeople, this seems like the most obvious, unsurprising answer.
So (Score:5, Insightful)
So we should cause cheerleaders to date nerds, and football players fangirls? Maybe no one who can name all eleven doctors should be allowed to marry at all, but rather should be put full time to impregnating Olympic athletes?
I like the idea that Aspergers is associated directly with intelligence. I also like the whorish way that the paper's author plays with the concept of eugenics to get more hits.
I also like the way that the author tries to ignore environmental conditions such as increased urbanization and subsequent hyper-socialization.
Re: (Score:2)
As Simon Baron Cohen puts it, (roughly) Asperger's Syndrome is the label you get if you're autistic but also intelligent enough to at least try to cope.
Re: (Score:2)
And mildly autistic is the label you get if you don't fit in nor care to?
Re: (Score:2)
Mildly autistic isn't a technical term as far as I know. Autism is a very well defined diagnosis and you can't be just a little autistic.
Re: (Score:3)
Autism is a very well defined diagnosis and you can't be just a little autistic.
Sure you can. That's why it's called the Autism Spectrum and systems like CARS (Childhood Autism Rating Scale) exist.
The diagnosis for Autism might be boolean, but there are many other diagnoses that might not be Autism but remain on the Autism Spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Maybe no one who can name all eleven doctors [...]
I'm sorry, really, but the first time I read that what shot through my mind was "Sure, I can do that. The first doctor. The second doctor. The third doctor." But that's either very silly or even more deeply geeky than what you meant. Can't decide. Never mind.
Parenthetically, I'd bet lunch that my teenage daughter can name at very least the actors who played the doctor since 1996, and probably three of the "classic" doctors, and she actually has a
Re: (Score:2)
i know this was a joke but "Name All N Doctors" normally refers to naming all N Actors which a complete (wiki) list would be
William Hartnell
Patrick Troughton
Jon Pertwee
Tom Baker
Peter Davison
Colin Baker
Sylvester McCoy
Paul McGann
Christopher Eccleston
David Tennant
Matt Smith
of course a real test would be naming all of the Companions (and matching with the Doctor of the time) or naming which Doctor only had a Movie (no shows)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the average age of an Olympic gymnast is 18, and the Olympics is next year, so I'd say they're going into 10th, 11th, or 12th grade right about now. Unless you mean the Chinese team. They're entering middle school about now.
Re: (Score:2)
So where's the women gymnastics team?
You must mean the former women gymnastics team members. I am fairly sure that none of the current team members (should be renamed the "girl's gymnastics team") can procreate.
Re: (Score:3)
My nephew started exhibiting traits consistent with being on the autism spectrum at around 3/4 years of age. He has siblings and cousins who were raised together and are not autistic. His parents are competent, dedicated, and hard-working folks who do not deserve your criticism. These days, the autism diagnosis can be made considerably before bad parenting can have a measurable effect on a child's development. It has been scientifically demonstrable that autism is a real biological condition that deserv
Re: (Score:2)
ADD and Asperger's are nothing but labels which medicalize one of two things:
- Either the justification of rotten childhood behavior resulting from being spoiled rotten with no discipline, or
- An excuse for parents, who are too busy reliving their own youth through mid-life crises to actually do some damn parenting, to keep their kids in overmedicated stupors.
Talk about worthless, brain-dead, theories -- you just contributed two more!
Any science behind this? (Score:2)
I am diagnosed with AS and I am always interested in science behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At first I figured you were just one of those trolls who post random stuff to unrelated stories, but then I got the joke. Nice one.
Or, if you prefer: :-O :)
At first I was like o_O
Then I was
But now I'm
Thanks (Score:2)
Thanks, Mom and Dad.
Old news - Wired already has discussed this (Score:5, Informative)
Does TFA add anything new?
"Results are preliminary" (Score:3)
Or so the article states. But, having read the article, the "results" are actually more speculation than anything else (and one line in the article says as much). He hasn't really studied it, he just thinks he's seen some evidence and decided to say so.
Now to pull some criticism out of my nether regions (gotta match the story for scientific rigor)... based on my observations, this seems like groundless speculation. Looking at all the couples I know socially, none of them are in the same field. Broadening the search to people of whom I'm aware... maybe a total of two couples are in the same/similar fields; so I have a hard time believing this hypothesis will turn out to have any significant basis in fact.
yeah, no... (Score:3, Funny)
we all know autism/aspegers is caused by vaccines....
Diagnosis Criteria (Score:5, Interesting)
Increasing rates in Autism are due to the ever expanding classification system of the DSM. Behaviour that was previously not included in the 'diagnosis' (qualifications, if you prefer) are now included.
You could read Jon Ronson's Psychopath Test for a small insight into the way the people behind the categorisation process simply make shit up and grow the criteria for inclusion to a category like they're pulling rabbits out of a hat stuffed with millions of rabbits.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course they're doing this - it's entirely expected behaviour. After all, the more people they can mis-diagnose, the more $$$$.
They have to make up for all the revenue they lost with previous false claims that ulcers were caused by a neur
Re: (Score:2)
Please present double blind tests for psycho-analysis*, the we can proceed.
OTOH no matter how much you study astrology, you won't be able to better predict the future.
*because that's what seems to be the most popular form of treatment
The answer is in the pudding (Score:3)
Quote from article: "The theory is still largely speculation, shored up by seductive anecdotes about Asperger's appearing unusually commonly in MIT alums and their children..."
Let us know when you have more than speculation and we will be quite interested.
By the way, I was diagnosed with Asperger's so this isn't a troll post. Theory becoming something that gets peoples' minds moving in a direction that can cause false categorization of ideas is normal but not newsworthy.
Actually, yeah, it is. Fear, panic, and fascination keep the money flowin' :)
Re: (Score:2)
It's good to know that there are people whose minds works a bit different from average, but that doesn't mean you have to start putting all people in pigeon holes.
Old, Old Idea (Score:2)
Here is an article almost a /decade/ old on this:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers.html [wired.com]
It's really cat people vs. dog people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pet choice may or may not correlate with autism.
However not understanding the concept of anecdotal evidence is a 100% sure indicator of being a shit-thick pillock.
Cart before horse? (Score:2)
An interesting question is whether people capable of intense mental focus (which may be medicalized into an Asperger's diagnosis)
are better at programming and thus go into it or related fields, and are thus found in higher percentages among geeks, or...
Does programming train (and eventually re-pattern the connections of) the brain into being more deeply attention-focussed, thus
causing Asperger's syndrome.
There is no doubt that patterns of mental work re-shape the brain's connections and tendencies
(e.g. Prol
I have an alternate theory (Score:2)
They're also just the kind of obsessive types who will become convinced that their kid has autism the second he/she acts a little shy....and the kind of people who will take him/her to the pediatrician and pepper the good doctor with their "autism" observations until he finally relents and labels the kid an autistic tard and dopes him up on whatever-the-fuck autism drug happens to be hot today....and the kind of people who will then tell everyone who will listen all the details of the "autistic" kid and his
Re: (Score:2)
That is more true than many would like to think. There are 2 ways this can happen:
1. For poor kids, a good-hearted but misguided social worker may try to give them a diagnosis so they have a better chance of passing in school.
2. For rich kids, parents will try to give them a diagnosis in order to give them a leg up on exams, get them into and through good schools, and so forth.
What the diagnosis is changes: 15 years ago, the kids were all getting diagnosed with ADHD. About 7 years ago, it became autism or A
Re: (Score:2)
Still plenty of ADHD cases around- and in my anecdotal observations of the ones I'm aware of I would consider them legitimate dx at that.
Re: (Score:2)
1) social workers don't diagnose kids.
2) rich people don't already have the best tool for their kids getting a leg up: Money.
ADHD is not Aspergers . The understanding of the difference in the last 10 years or so is why you see a difference in diagnoses rates. People still have ADHD and some people have Aspergers syndrome. There no longer dump into the same group.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have never seen that, and all the doctors I have talked to who specialize in this have clear ways to determine autism.
new technique for diagnoses and better understand is what the change is.
You are factual wrong and have no idea of the science that is going on. They only person people want to here less from then someone yammering on about their kids is you.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. it's SCIENCE, huh? Thanks for letting me know that there is now an objective blood test for this condition. Because I was ignorantly under the impression that diagnosis still consisted of subjective observations from some random asshole doctor, who may or may not have any fucking clue what he's even doing.
The beautiful thing about Asperger's Syndrome. (Score:3)
Under the Americans With DIsabilities Act, Asperger's Syndrome is a get-out-of-stupid-corporate-team-building-activity-free card.
Now just try to claim, without giggling, that you're not tempted to go out and get diagnosed.
Re: (Score:2)
Which just goes to show, if you're offered a new position organizing team building activities, don't take it!
(Trust me on this.)
Re: (Score:2)
get-out-of-stupid-corporate-team-building-activity-free? Our whole company did that by sacking the stupid-corporate-team-building-activity-supporting CEO.
That's a team building exercise we can all get behind.
Capt'n Obvious to the rescue? (Score:2)
I thought it was long established that autism has strong genetics factors, and that mild forms of autism are more strongly represented in technical fields than non-technical fields. Why is it shocking that when two people marry who are both from a population with a strong predisposition towards autism, their child has a higher chance to get autism as well?
Either there's something in the paper I'm missing, or the submitter got trolled by the language used in the paper.
Re: (Score:2)
"I thought it was long established that autism has strong genetics factors" - Probably
"and that mild forms of autism are more strongly represented in technical fields than non-technical fields." - false
Oy Vey (Score:2)
You know I always did find jocks (and military guys) physically attractive, maybe I'm doing it wrong going after those cute awkward dorky guys...
I should be thinking of the children I'm unable to produce with another guy!
technically minded men don't marry or have kids (Score:2)
They are missing an essential component for procreation.... Which would be a woman.
And I'm someone who knows, not that I would *want* to have a kid (I would never torture another human to have my face)...
Brilliant (Score:2)
How long did it take them to come up with this theory...
Anyway. Just one more reason to find a not too bright 24 years old with long blonde hair and big boobs...
wrong (Score:2)
it's 'on the rise' because it is recognized and diagnosed more accurately.
"The theory is still largely speculation, shored up by seductive anecdotes about Asperger's appearing unusually commonly in MIT alums and their children,"
So..not a theory at all. Simply a musing, one that's trying to solve a problem that doesn't actual exist. The problem being 'why it's on the rise', not that Asperger isn't real.
And so is Assburgers. That's a nod to cracked.
Re: (Score:2)
> it's 'on the rise' because it is recognized and diagnosed more accurately.
That's certainly possible. That's true of a lot of afflictions -- that they're being recognized and diagnosed more accurately these days. But it's also possible that at least in some cases, it's being overdiagnosed, or "diagnosed" by non-professionals (school counselors for instance -- aw, don't get me started...) and repeated as true, skewing our perceptions.
Wow (Score:2)
Good thing my wife can't figure out which end of a cell phone to talk into. Daughter (now a teen) is social and a geek. I guess I got lucky.
This isn't causing autism! (Score:2)
As someone with mild Asperger's, I call bollox on this.
While it seems self-evident that like-minded people would breed, concentrating certain traits, and some of those traits may lead to ASD-like symptoms, I think the whole matter is overblown.
For one thing, it's already well established that the increase in diagnosis is due to greater awareness of the condition and a broadening of the definition. If we applied today's ASD standards to people in the 19th century, you would get nearly the same rate of ASD f
much better explanation (Score:2)
there's a much better explanation, based on someone who quotes cured quotes her son of autism. she hypothesised that autism was caused by excessive toxins reaching the brain.
she hypothesised and then proved through simply looking up existing medical research that the toxins get there because of strong antibiotics and the practice of immunisation killing "good" bacteria as well as bad, leaving a body that is completely devoid of bacteria that then re-grows, and re-forms "pockets" of bad bacteria that are bo
Isn't this a case (Score:2)
Of geeks bearing geeks?
That isn't what increases autism rates (Score:2)
What increases autism rates is an increase in the diagnosis of autism.
I don't know if people have realized this, but nobody is an asshole anymore. Now people are 'borderline personality disorder' or 'aspergers' or 'bipolar' -- but people haven't changed, just diagnosis.
Personally, I still think some people are still just assholes. Not that I don't ascribe to mental illness -- I most certainly do believe people can have those aforementioned conditions -- but I think problems are over-diagnosed and over-med
Easy to cross check with autism demographics (Score:2)
Borat? Is that you? (Score:2)
Nope... it's his cousin [wikipedia.org]. Small world huh?
Re: (Score:2)
However Women taking Birth Control pills have there algorithm altered. Makes you wonder how many little things ad up to result in a cause.
Re: (Score:2)
You present a well thought-out and highly cogent argument in favour of your theory of over diagnosis. Your explanation of the difference between current over diagnosis and prior under diagnosis shows remarkable insight into the psyche of diagnosticians the world over. While I tend to agree with your findings on ADHD, I was initially unconvinced that the same mechanism was at play here with AS, but the evidence you present and your deductive reasoning are absolutely irrefutable and I now find myse
Re: (Score:3)
" I am only really into girls on the spectrum who are hyper intelligent and 'nerdy' which in a lot of ways is all being an aspie is"
No it isn't, and in fact being 'aspie'* does not mean more intelligent.. but please, go on.
Oh, and then you diagnose others based on opinion in a non science setting. interesting, please go on.
"It Psychology as a whole has only been around about a hundred years," This falls under neurology, but please, stop.
You are clueless about what you are talking about.
We are just recognizi
Re: (Score:2)
I am very glad for you - your kid will hopefully know s/he is loved, no matter what. I'm glad there are people who can do that. I took the opposite approach and on top of never being all that interested in kids, have always felt that there was no way I was subjecting some poor unsuspecting kid to my alternating neglect and intense focus nevermind the weird social issues. My cats seem messed up enough, honestly, a kid wouldn't stand a chance. Good luck and best wishes!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)