Autism Genetics Study

[The Pandector]

Thanks for the reasoned reminders.
@marc_101 said:
I understand the skepticism but also keep an open mind.

That's how I feel about science. Not only is skepticism the healthiest response to any truth claim, it's bedrock to the practice of science. Any time the practice of science reports a newly-established 'fact', we ought to be cautious. To me, that's the catch point.

If I may generalize... In practical terms, people see the declarations of the scientific community as fulfilling the need for skepticism; that's what 'they' say, and, you know, 'they' are the scientists, no need to be skeptical any longer. The scientists have done our skepticism duties for us.

You've provided an excellent example. (*Please don't think I'm assuming anything about your personal process, but this is a common example.*)

Keep in mind that over the entire timeline of human existence, our ability to understand the world is less than 1 second old.

This represents a series of assumptions, about both the age of the universe and of the human race. We have indeed just recently formed a cohesive set of assumptions, and have fairly solid scientific evidence upon which they are founded. If I were building a space ship, I'd rely on the best set of assumptions available; it pretty much always works out. If I were an astronaut, however, I would keep in mind that the division between body and soul is not a matter of science. While science might someday see right up to the end of the 'body' side of the equation, the 'soul' side is beyond their instruments. Science can't establish a link between a body and a soul, and it can't separate the two without terminating the host. Science knows nothing of the soul, yet the human soul reaches out into the universe with science. It should be clear which is the primary realm.

Of course, there are alternate understandings of the spiritual side of existence, and we ought to be just as skeptical in our evaluation of their various truth claims. (Here, the scientist is stumped because their sensor arrays aren't tuned to those realities; many go so far as to say this is proof those realities don't exist. Talk about faith in your instruments!) Evaluating truth claims about spiritual realities requires a different set of methods and sensors, and the practitioner learns what confidence level can be placed in their various equipment.

FINALLY, I can make my point. While the person more focused on the spiritual side can easily turn to science when that is what is called for, it is manifestly clear that science has a hard time even acknowledging the existence of any realm beyond their own, let alone discerning when they must yield authority to those other realms.

In both the spiritual and scientific realms, there are charlatans who use their expertise to personal advantage, and this muddies the waters even beyond the skepticism due any $trillion industry, which is what science has become.

 

[marc_101]

FINALLY, I can make my point. While the person more focused on the spiritual side can easily turn to science when that is what is called for, it is manifestly clear that science has a hard time even acknowledging the existence of any realm beyond their own, let alone discerning when they must yield authority to those other realms.

Sorry, I don't mean to be confrontational, but that statement is hard for me to understand. "Science" is not a conscious entity. It has no feelings or intentions. Scientists do. I happen to be a scientist. I do acknowledge many realms other than science or the scientific method, and so do many of my colleagues. The only certain knowledge I have is that I don't know enough. I don't know if there is a life after this one or if time travel is possible. I most days, I don't understand myself or my feelings. I have many theories with no way of proving them.

No need to reply. We can just agree to not understand each other. That's ok.

 

[UFO]

@Levitator You are looking at this from a single-sided perspective. The way how I see these things, is that to ever get a change to "their" behavior towards "us", "they" need to learn to understand "us". Whether it happens by genetic examination or by endless behavioral study, doesn't matter as long as they can keep collecting as much information as possible.

Sure, not even nearly all of them ever get it (I agree, history has awful examples), but eventually there are some who do get it when information accumulates (interestingly, history also has good examples - what eventually happened to the phrenology?).

Denying the whole study is not helping anyone. It is just preserving current status quo, which is not desirable state of affairs.

 

[Levitat0r]

@Levitator You are looking at this from a single-sided perspective. The way how I see these things, is that to ever get a change to "their" behavior towards "us", "they" need to learn to understand "us". Whether it happens by genetic examination or by endless behavioral study, doesn't matter as long as they can keep collecting as much information as possible.

Sure, not even nearly all of them ever get it (I agree, history has awful examples), but eventually there are some who do get it when information accumulates (interestingly, history also has good examples - what eventually happened to the phrenology?).

Denying the whole study is not helping anyone. It is just preserving current status quo, which is not desirable state of affairs.

What I'm telling you is that your genes don't tell you anything about who someone is. It doesn't tell you anything about their character, and it's unlikely to tell you anything about how they organize their thoughts or live their life. You're discussing a reasonable objective, but genetics are the wrong approach.

 

[Levitat0r]

I understand the skepticism but also keep an open mind. We all seem to have a different understanding of "science." It has been helpful to use resources to systematically understand and define the collection of traits (syndrome) that are currently called autism, which I'm sure will be further refined and relabel in the future. The more we understand it, the more helpful it has been for us, whatever it is you want to do with your life.

This forum and our understanding of ourselves would not exist without that effort. That is science.

Science is not an obscure incantation; it's the same you're all doing in these posts: trying to understand a problem -- it just happens to come with a way of doing things that has been systematized over the last (more or less) hundred years. Or see it like this: a way to study anecdotes and build theories around them.

The fact that there is no MRI or genetic test is because it turns out that autism (and other neurological problems and mental illness) happens to be a very complicated problem. They are syndromes that do not depend on a single gene but seem to be the product of many genes combined with the environment. It's not like eye color.

Personally, I'd rather more is done to better understand autism than giving up because the issue is difficult.

Keep in mind that over the entire timeline of human existence, our ability to understand the world is less than 1 second old. We only started to conduct randomized experiments about 100 years ago. The structure of DNA was discovered in 1953. Statistics as a field is a baby. A baby that has grown a lot only in the last 30 years because with faster computers we can do things that were impossible before.

People often adopt science in place of religion, and then every problem becomes a nail for their science hammer even when it's the completely wrong tool for the job.

 

[The Pandector]

Sorry, I don't mean to be confrontational, but that statement is hard for me to understand. "Science" is not a conscious entity. It has no feelings or intentions. Scientists do. I happen to be a scientist. I do acknowledge many realms other than science or the scientific method, and so do many of my colleagues. The only certain knowledge I have is that I don't know enough. I don't know if there is a life after this one or if time travel is possible. I most days, I don't understand myself or my feelings. I have many theories with no way of proving them.

No need to reply. We can just agree to not understand each other. That's ok.

I agree with everything you say, except I don’t think I have any trouble understanding you. A short explanation, in case you want to understand me. (Not to say agree with me.)

Science has a public persona, a cumulative effect. Of course there are religious scientists and ethics-challenged Christians. I begged leave in my earlier post to generalize because I believe the cumulative impact of science (therefore of scientists in general) is as I stated in that post. One might argue, for example, that there are many great public school teachers, but that doesn’t argue the impact of teachers’ unions on society in general.

Agree with my analysis or disagree, all good. But I would be interested to hear from a scientist who doesn’t believe science has a cumulative impact (persona, if you will) quite apart from any individual civilian’s ability to evaluate scientific results. No doubt, the sociologists have a name for this effect.

All said with a clear heart, , hope it didn’t seem confrontational.

 

[UFO]

What I'm telling you is that your genes don't tell you anything about who someone is. It doesn't tell you anything about their character, and it's unlikely to tell you anything about how they organize their thoughts or live their life.

Of course not. I don't know conscious or subconscious motives of CosmicVenus, but in general that is not a purpose of any kind of scientific studies. In general level, research is just collection of information, sometimes with an open-ended purpose, sometimes to collect evidence to prove or disprove some single, well-defined assumption. Nothing more, nothing less.

You're discussing a reasonable objective, but genetics are the wrong approach.

How can you tell? Based on what evidence? You can't know that. If it is a wrong approach, then it will be found out eventually after a long long long collection of information that eventually turns out to be useless. But usefulness of the information is not known before it has been collected and reviewed.

 

[Levitat0r]

Of course not. I don't know conscious or subconscious motives of CosmicVenus, but in general that is not a purpose of any kind of scientific studies. In general level, research is just collection of information, usually with an open-ended purpose. Nothing more, nothing less.


How can you tell? Based on what evidence? You can't know that. If it is a wrong approach, then it will be found out eventually after a long long long collection of information that eventually turns out to be useless. But usefulness of the information is not known before it has been collected and reviewed.

I think my concern is that the obvious potential for misuse greatly outweighs the lack of any visible merit. I used to think of myself as a dedicated technologist, but I see three distinct stop-signs, and those are the atom bomb, GATTACA Movie-style genetics/bioengineering, and terrible AI. Science is not always the answer. The Nazis thought that science would dictate what manner of people ought and ought not to exist, because they had themselves confused with God, just like people who build atom bombs or who wind up integrating genetics into government. There are already tendrils of government in the pseudoscience of psychiatry, and that is a highly exploitable disaster.

 

[Neri]

Yeah. Eugenics is a scary thing.

 

[The Pandector]

What I'm telling you is that your genes don't tell you anything about who someone is. It doesn't tell you anything about their character, and it's unlikely to tell you anything about how they organize their thoughts or live their life. You're discussing a reasonable objective, but genetics are the wrong approach.

Just for fun, I’ll take exception to you saying genetics doesn’t tell you ‘anything’ about who someone is. I believe genetics often gives us propensities towards certain behaviors. Much about a person has to do with how they deal with their negative and positive propensities, in my understanding.

History, both Scriptural and otherwise, abounds with evidence of national character, and any animal lover knows breeding has profound implications for behavior regardless of nurture.

But, this was just conversational; you are perfectly correct, IMNTHO, that knowing a person’s genetics is no indication at all of how that soul has dealt with the issues of their life.

 

[The Pandector]

Yeah. Eugenics is a scary thing.

Agreed, of course. But…. I wonder what the complete lack of breeding selection brings about. Oops, it’s election season; I’ll probably be quoted as saying that a little eugenics is a good thing. . .

 

[Levitat0r]

Just for fun, I’ll take exception to you saying genetics doesn’t tell you ‘anything’ about who someone is. I believe genetics often gives us propensities towards certain behaviors. Much about a person has to do with how they deal with their negative and positive propensities, in my understanding.

History, both Scriptural and otherwise, abounds with evidence of national character, and any animal lover knows breeding has profound implications for behavior regardless of nurture.

But, this was just conversational; you are perfectly correct, IMNTHO, that knowing a person’s genetics is no indication at all of how that soul has dealt with the issues of their life.

You just compared people to breeding livestock and then tied nationalism to genetics. I hope you will take a moment to examine yourself and rethink your values.

 

[Levitat0r]

Agreed, of course. But…. I wonder what the complete lack of breeding selection brings about. Oops, it’s election season; I’ll probably be quoted as saying that a little eugenics is a good thing. . .

Selection, as such, is none of your business. You're not in charge of the gene pool. Previously, I would have said that an individual might want to contemplate how their own conditions would affect future children, since this is their own genes, and their own children, and they are minding their own business, but at this point, I will only speak for myself and say that I would let God decide who my kids are, if I ever have any.

 

[The Pandector]

You just compared people to breeding livestock and then tied nationalism to genetics. I hope you will take a moment to examine yourself and rethink your values.

It’s not a matter of values. Maybe you believe that human beings aren’t subject to Mendelian rules, in which case you’re operating on a different cosmic plane than I am.

I live in a world where people can be compared to livestock, and so do you. The farmer and his cow both breath, both eat, both have blood. My golly! Did I just compare humans to livestock? Why, that is obviously a severe moral failure, and as you suggest, I need to examine the depths of my soul.

If you believe that the particular genetic pool you swim (your country) doesn’t impact your genetic makeup, you have lost sight of some pretty basic genetic differences between people, like skin and hair color, which are quite obviously different in different countries.

These things are common knowledge, brother. But when you sling them around in an emotional blender, you can come up with moral condemnation for the most laughable reasons. So, I’d advise caution on your part.

Yes, I was making comparisons between human and nonhuman life forms. Yes, I boldly affirm that your country of origin has a considerable impact on your genetics. Now, it’s time to deal with that flaming moral supremacy: so I’ll leave you to it. Luck.

 

[UFO]

I think my concern is that the obvious potential for misuse greatly outweighs the lack of any visible merit.

Ok. This is getting subjective, so I'll quit here.

I mean that I agree with you, and I respect and share your concern of misuse and people's habit of using this kind of things (and, generally speaking, everything) as a tool for bad things, but I see the balance of misuse and potential merit differently. That is more matter of opinion than something that can be proven to be right or wrong, so to me there is no point continuing from here.

 

[The Pandector]

Selection, as such, is none of your business. You're not in charge of the gene pool. Previously, I would have said that an individual might want to contemplate how their own conditions would affect future children, since this is their own genes, and their own children, and they are minding their own business, but at this point, I will only speak for myself and say that I would let God decide who my kids are, if I ever have any.

Again, we’re apparently operating on different planes. That is, if it sounded to you as if I were trying to tell anyone what to do with their genetic material.

But if I like, I will feel free to comment on these issues even though, as you point out, I am not officially in charge of the human gene pool. As they say in France, ‘Sheesh’.

 

[Levitat0r]

Ok. This is getting subjective, so I'll quit here.

I mean that I agree with you, and I respect and share your concern of misuse and people's habit of using this kind of things (and, generally speaking, everything) as a tool for bad things, but I see the balance of misuse and potential merit differently. That is more matter of opinion than something that can be proven to be right or wrong, so to me there is no point continuing from here.

It's not just a matter of opinion, because a massive genocide took place over precisely this manner of thinking. I will add that autistic people are a vulnerable population since communication problems seem to be an inherent issue; you scream your head off but people dismiss you as a babbling fool. They can also be seen as useful, or as inconvenient, precisely because they function differently. Specifically, if you're like the voting-age permachild who sees naked emperors, it's Pilate Herod who is going to be interested in your genetic workup, and he's the one who committed a genocide against all male children under age 2. History is rife with warnings about the dangers to minorities, and the genes offer dangerous tools, but no help in sight. Counseling is needed after you have observed how their mind works, not after you've analyzed their blood.

 

[Slime_Punk]

Unfortunately finding people in your area on a forum with a deadline so soon just slims the odds down to basically 0. I'm not going to say, "You won't find that, here!" but there are users from all over the world on here, and you're almost better off searching for candidates locally instead of casting such a wide net. You know, unless you've got a buttload of plane tickets or a really cool private jet.

Giving up DNA in today's world is kind of becoming scary business, too. People who pretend not to sell our phone numbers already find a way, so what's stopping that from happening with more important things?

In before "I got denied insurance because I have ASD, which precedes preexisting conditions". It's all fun and games until evil people get involved and use your own information against you, and DNA isn't a good one to mess with.

 

[UFO]

It's not just a matter of opinion

Actually it is. That scaling difference between benefits and drawbacks is a matter of opinion, as we both do it differently, but presumably based on same (or close enough) set of facts and lack of facts, and neither of us have the knowledge of absolute truth.

 

[Levitat0r]

Actually it is. That scaling difference between benefits and drawbacks is a matter of opinion, as we both do it differently, but presumably based on same (or close enough) set of facts and lack of facts, and neither of us have the knowledge of absolute truth.

There is no absolute truth on earth, so returning to the observation that people have done mostly harm with all of the genetic prospects we are contemplating, maybe we could forget about it. Talking to someone to find out about their mind is the logical way to do it; it's like taking a plane to China, while the other way is like digging a tunnel through the earth, except that it enables Nazis on the way. If you care about the mind and soul, then have a conversation with it. Nobody has reverse-engineered even the gross anatomy of the brain yet, much less all the way down to gene expression, but they have found ways to use hereditary markers for bigotry and genocide.