Autism IS linked to higher intelligence

[King_Oni]

Getting onto the "common sense" train here for a moment. While I can totally see everyones point about common sense, I do find it baffling to assume people have this sense. Of course I would like people to be more "standardized" when it comes to certain things, but who is to judge what people should now, and about which things common sense should apply?

For most of my life I went with the assumption that everyone is a blank slate and no one knows anything. Essentially, treat everyone you don't know as if it's their first day on this planet. Yes, it makes life and interaction tedious, but it's equally tedious to assume they know about the same things I perceive as common as me. And I'm not even getting started on knowledge itself. Just bare basic facts of life that should keep one from harm. But like I said before; a proper test is natural selection, it's just that we are dumbing down everything so people that lack that bit of sense (regardless on whether it's common) do get to live on and have kids of their own, who in turn might not comprehend and possess a similar sense either and thus it's being passed on for generations.

What I find baffling as a non-US citizen, and perhaps this is just the perception of me, or the perception of us europeans; the entire culture in the US to sue companies over everything and anything, be it for financial gain or just by an actual lack of any sense, might just be a contributing factor why the world has fallen short when it comes to common sense (not just in the US though, europe is decreasing their posession of any sense as well) . Makes me wonder if we collectively just decided "let's just stop thinking for ourselves and let people tell us what not to do, that way, if something goes wrong, we can blame others." Because some stories I read; it amazes me and I really think to myself "I know not everyone is blessed with a proper brain, but do people this stupid really exist?" (one can argue that if people that stupid would've lived decades or centuries ago, they'd end up in an asylum). Do we really need this many disclaimers? Do we need to tell people that you should not dry your cat in the microwave when it got wet after walking around in the rain? A lot of disclaimers I see aren't only geared towards own personal safety but the safety of others; and that bothers me more. The fact that we don't even consider that something might be a risk for others.

On the other hand; I think history has shown us some mighty good examples what doesn't constitute common sense; I'll just mention the Salem witch trials, lol.

Also; I find it interesting that we have a little debate here on common sense, while most of the world probably drones on and assumes everyone has common sense and the same rules apply. Those people are probably in for a rude awakening some day in their lifetime...

 

[Judge]

What I find baffling as a non-US citizen, and perhaps this is just the perception of me, or the perception of us europeans; the entire culture in the US to sue companies over everything and anything, be it for financial gain or just by an actual lack of any sense, might just be a contributing factor why the world has fallen short when it comes to common sense (not just in the US though, europe is decreasing their posession of any sense as well) .

Not a lack of common sense. More a case of avarice. A legal system largely in the hands of trial lawyer$. Who see to it in both state and federal legislatures that laws remain quite laxed when it comes to most any tort. A definite method to the madness. However in all fairness, not all states reflect this level of litigiousness.

The European corporate insurer I once worked for became so exasperated over such dynamics given endless lawsuits and claims that they eventually opted to sell the American portion of the company.

 

[Jaywalker]

What I find baffling as a non-US citizen, and perhaps this is just the perception of me, or the perception of us europeans; the entire culture in the US to sue companies over everything and anything, be it for financial gain or just by an actual lack of any sense, might just be a contributing factor why the world has fallen short when it comes to common sense (not just in the US though, europe is decreasing their posession of any sense as well).

To be fair such civil suits are often exaggerated and reported with a tremendous amount of spin in the media.

In a business law class, we studied Liebeck v. McDonalds, more commonly known as the McDonald's hot coffee case, which is frequently offered as the quintessential example of frivolous lawsuits. Who doesn't expect their coffee to be hot when served, right? However, if one considers the facts of the case as they were presented to the jury, instead of how they were cherry-picked by the media, it seems clear that any reasonable jury would have reached substantially the same verdict and award.

In the US, actual frivolous lawsuits tend to be thrown out early. If a case makes it to a jury, there's a very good chance that it addresses a legitimate grievance.

 

[AsheSkyler]

I think you two are talking about different things. Ashe's perception of common sense is that which is essential for everyday survival; Jay is talking about it in a much broader, more universal but less personal sense, in which things like science step in and prove useful. Both of you are right; you're just speaking in different contexts.

Sounds about right to me. =)

 

[Tia Maria]

I came across this today while doing other reading. I highlighted what seem to be the salient points.

Genetic Link Found Between Autism & Higher Intelligence | Psych Central News

New research suggests genes linked with a greater risk of developing autism may also be associated with higher intelligence.

In the study, researchers at the University of Edinburgh found evidence linking genetic factors associated with autism to better cognitive ability in people who do not have the condition.

Nevertheless, the relationship between autism and intelligence is not clear.

Although up to 70 percent of individuals with autism have an intellectual disability, some people with the disorder have relatively well-preserved, or even higher than average, non-verbal intelligence.

Autism is classified as a developmental disability that can cause significant language and speech difficulties. Non-verbal intelligence enables people to solve complex problems using visual and hands-on reasoning skills requiring little or no use of language.

Researchers at the Universities of Edinburgh and Queensland analyzed almost 10,000 people recruited from the general population of Scotland. Individuals were tested for general cognitive ability and received DNA analysis.

The team found that even among people who never develop autism, carrying genetic traits associated with the disorder is, on average, linked to scoring slightly better on cognitive tests.

Researchers found further evidence of a link between autism-associated genes and intelligence when they carried out the same tests on 921 adolescents who were part of the Brisbane Adolescent Twin Study.

The study is published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry.

“Our findings show that genetic variation which increases risk for autism is associated with better cognitive ability in non-autistic individuals. As we begin to understand how genetic variants associated with autism impact brain function, we may begin to further understand the nature of autistic intelligence,” said Dr. Toni-Kim Clarke, the study leader.

Prominent geneticist Nick Martin, Ph.D., of the Queensland Institute for Medical Research, said: “Links between autism and better cognitive function have been suspected and are widely implied by the well-known ‘Silicon Valley syndrome’ and films such as ‘Rain Man’ as well as in popular literature.

“This study suggests genes for autism may actually confer, on average, a small intellectual advantage in those who carry them, provided they are not affected by autism.”

 

[Nadador]

The study in question, Common polygenic risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is associated with cognitive ability in the general population, didn’t measure autistics. The text of the actual paper says exactly what TiaMaria quoted from PsychCentral...reasearchers recruited 10,000 people from the general population of Scotland, administered a test of cognitive ability, and analysed their DNA for genetic traits associated with autism. The lead investigator, Dr. Toni-Kim Clarke of The University of Edinburgh, makes no claim about people who are actually on the spectrum and intelligence. There is no sound basis for extrapolating these findings out to people with manifested ASDs. If we're interested in conjecture, it could just as easily be asserted that these findings indicate people who are on the spectrum may be missing out on the intelligence "edge" associated with present-but-unexpressed genes, as a significant portion of autistics suffer from cognitive impairments.

This, unfortunately, is the sort of finding that could well be used to argue a need for an autism "cure". The proposition would go like this: Keep the inherited traits from manifesting, and you'd have a bunch of intellectually superior people rather than a bunch of disordered ones. I can just see certain organisations taking that ball and running with it.

On other matters....

The designation “low-functioning” has been used in scientific literature to describe severe cases of autism since the days of Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger. Regardless of how some individuals or organisations may use it today, it was intended as objective nomenclature based on relative functionality. The problem of adapting terms used in biopsychosocial research to the public lexicon isn’t limited to the realm of autism. In these days of political sensitivity, laymen are frequently offended by appellations that were never meant to be disparaging. It’s a shame that some choose to apply objective terminology as a judgement of human value, which is what makes us averse to that language, but their mean-spirited misapplication doesn’t render the terms themselves invalid. A few researchers like Ivar Lovaas have expressed distaste for the use of “low-functioning” and “high-functioning”, but they remain a small minority. I personally study terms in context before I decide what I feel about their use in a particular instance.

A crystallised [acquired] knowledge component is only a very small part of an IQ test, where it is present at all. Most recent-edition tests don’t include it, as over the past two generations a better effort has been made to eliminate bias in IQ testing. The meat of a proper IQ test evaluates skills such as fluid intelligence, quantitative reasoning, visual and auditory processing, speed of processing and decision-making, and memory storage and retrieval for information presented within the test span. So to say IQ tests are “knowledge” tests is inaccurate.

In my view, "common sense" is akin to what is known in law as the "reasonable person standard". It pertains to what can reasonably be expected of similar persons under the same circumstances. This means that what is considered common sense is actually stratified by status, though the concept has been more or less usurped by the middle and working classes, who seem to like it as a badge of competence.

[Sorry if I sound a bit cold and mechanical tonight. I've spent the day poring over research, and so am stuck in a somewhat humourless mode....]

 

[Lukas]

Humans incessantly try to quantify everything. While I do not mind this terribly, I consider it a bit of a waste of energy. Nonetheless, since the world needs to assign letters and numbers to everything, I think they should be less selective and more open minded about the process.

What I mean by this is.... I completely agree with Howard Gardner's "theory" on multiple intelligences.... to me it is not a theory but a fact. It remains just a theory since it is difficult if not impossible to quantify such things. I believe in natural intelligence... and one I came up with myself... an aesthetic intelligence... i think there are as many colors on the spectrum of intelligence as there are on the spectrum of autism.

I also tend to believe in a balance to the human animal. A glass can only hold so much... lets take tea for example... lets say a perfect cup of tea is 50/50 water and tea.... well... every cup is different, albeit slightly.... we aspies however are a bit more out of balance than your average cup of tea.... some a bit stronger in tea and weaker in water.... some stronger in water and weaker in tea.... we remain however... a full cup of tea.

While I personally did score very well on a WISC-R back in the day... going to mensa meetings did little for me other than bring into strong contrast my weaknesses insofar as interpersonal skills are concerned..... im a bit heavy on the tea.

The Hopi word... "koyaanisqatsi" comes to mind when I think of my psychology... life out of balance.

 

[JuniperBug]

The little I know about IQ suggests that those with high IQ can learn rules, recognize patterns, and adapt quickly.

If this is true, it makes so much sense that those of us with ASD or AS would score well. Personally, I feel hyper aware of rules everyday just as I try to navigate social situations at work and in daily life. I get a lot of practice and I'm sure you guys do too.

I don't like the terms low functioning and high functioning at all. As someone said, low functioning sounds like it dimisnishes personhood. I think that's why high functioning is used often...to validate personhood. And Los functioning is the obligatory opposite.

"She's autistic but, it's okay, she's high functioning"

"You have aspergers? Wow you must be really high functioning"

I've heard both of these so often it's not funny and I hate it every time because it seems to write off the problems I have while simultaneously insulting those who can't hide them as well as I can.

 

[ImAnAspie]

Source: People with genes related to autism 'scored better in mental ability tests' | Daily Mail Online

Despite the reputation the Daily mail has (or so I've gathered) I guess it can't hurt to post a link to the actual study (even if it's paid content) to point out it's not something the Daily mail just made up http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201512a.html

Maybe the tests were created by Aspies/Auties, people whose brains are wired the same as ours. Maybe the tests are biased in our favour and not NT's.

 

[Paulie]

I believe this to be true as far as IQ is concerned. But by measure of F Scott Fitzgerald's definition of a first class intelligence, it is my opinion that people on the spectrum are not anymore intelligent than average. By that definition, it is even probable that the average person on the spectrum is less intelligent than normal. I've spoken with many many people both on and off the spectrum. And true intelligence, or a first class intelligence as Mr. Fitzgerald defines it, is so incredibly rare that I can count on two hands the number of people that I've met whom I might classify as having enough objectivity and doubt to be considered truly elite. I'm conceited enough to believe myself to be a member of this group. But in general, people on the spectrum are mostly more close minded and convinced of their own correctness than much of the "NT" population. And so, the ability to perform well on an IQ test does correlate, but does not cause, true innovative thought and intelligence as I measure it. The shameful thing is that the way education is structured enforces the cow sort of knowledge while it should be developing the bull. True intelligence isn't measured by any test, at least not in my mind, it's measured by the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind while still retaining the ability to function. Those aren't my words, but the words of one of the most intelligent men ever to be popularized. And I realize most people don't know what cow and bull is, so here is a link to explain: Differences between 'to cow' and 'to bull' - Examsmanship & the Liberal Arts

Thank you for reading my response to this topic, hopefully you find my perspective helpful and maybe even agreeable. But I welcome you to argue the counterpoint, I'd love to hear why you disagree.

 

[Ylva]

But by measure of F Scott Fitzgerald's definition of a first class intelligence, it is my opinion that people on the spectrum are not anymore intelligent than average. By that definition, it is even probable that the average person on the spectrum is less intelligent than normal.

Sounds like Fitzgerald was talking about what can be termed social intelligence, or just the appearance of intelligence. I would never take either of those as proof that you can trust someone to solve a problem.

 

[Paulie]

Sounds like Fitzgerald was talking about what can be termed social intelligence, or just the appearance of intelligence. I would never take either of those as proof that you can trust someone to solve a problem.

F. Scott Fitzgerald quotes
I think it's pretty clear that he wasn't talking about social intelligence; however, I could be wrong.

 

[Ylva]

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

So then it's testable.

Still sounds arbitrary, not that I'm opposed to weighing for probability. I am, however, opposed to the assumption that certain groups of people are automatically less intelligent, because such excuses are made for abuse of power and nothing else. So I invite you to consider that the (statistically insignificant number of) autistics that you have met are in fact willing to consider opposing viewpoints, but prefer to do their thinking in private. (A so-called "open mind" isn't the be-all, end-all of thinking. You'll find some of the most open-minded people out there drinking distilled water to combat cancer and flushing their kids' digestive tracts in bleach solution to make them "stop having autism".) Not to mention that the (aforementioned) abuse they are overwhelmingly likely to have been subjected to may have affected their apparent intelligence or actual brain development, in which case you should file that under "PTSD/depression" and not "autism".

 

[Paulie]

So then it's testable.

Still sounds arbitrary, not that I'm opposed to weighing for probability. I am, however, opposed to the assumption that certain groups of people are automatically less intelligent, because such excuses are made for abuse of power and nothing else. So I invite you to consider that the (statistically insignificant number of) autistics that you have met are in fact willing to consider opposing viewpoints, but prefer to do their thinking in private. (A so-called "open mind" isn't the be-all, end-all of thinking. You'll find some of the most open-minded people out there drinking distilled water to combat cancer and flushing their kids' digestive tracts in bleach solution to make them "stop having autism".) Not to mention that the (aforementioned) abuse they are overwhelmingly likely to have been subjected to may have affected their apparent intelligence or actual brain development, in which case you should file that under "PTSD/depression" and not "autism".

I agree on many points, it's not my intention to dehumanize people with autism. I personally have complex-ptsd from growing up without a diagnosis and being a midst ignorant and assumptive people. However, my the belief that people on the autism spectrum commonly have "black and white thinking" is commonly held, and has a strong probability of being true. That being said, we're hardly the worst offenders, as your post suggests with the whole bleach and distilled water thing. An interesting tangent here, distilled water might actually be less healthy for you. On a molecular level, distilled water looks very gross. The "love water experiment," beyond showing the power of human consciousness, shows us that water can be healed with the power of the mind. Tap water is filled with drugs to the point where it is impacting the animals in some water ecosystems. (some of the drugs decrease the ability to have children, and I remember reading something about prawns being affected. The effects of these drugs are enough to warrant the drinking of distilled water if you don't have access to a spring or well. Tangents aside, I believe science is about disproving hypothesis', not proving. Thusly, it follows that open mindedness is important for advancements in theory and application of new ideas. But the people who lack it will often never doubt their beliefs. The world would stay flat forever without the people who question the status quo but don't discount it either.This is, of course, just my current belief based on available information. The theory you present about PTSD potentially causing close mindedness makes sense, and I see no evidence to refute it. In fact, my hypothesis that a majority of people on the spectrum have co-morbid ptsd seems to add to your argument. But I do not know for sure what causes the observations I've made. It could be personal bias skewing my perspective, or it could be that the sample size is too small for me to definitively say that people on the spectrum are more close minded on average than the average NT. I'll admit that I could very well be wrong, but it is my observation that most people on the spectrum often refuse to consider beliefs that differ from their own. It's hard to say since I've yet to find a study on this, but I see no holes in the perspective that I've presented besides the relatively small sample size in my observations.

 

[Ylva]

This article seems relevant:
Wiring of Autistic Brains Shown To Be Highly Individualized | IFLScience

"From a young age, the average, typical person's brain networks get molded by intensive interaction with people and the mutual environmental factors,” Hahamy continued. “Such shared experiences could tend to make the synchronization patterns in the control group's resting brains more similar to each other. It is possible that in ASD, as interactions with the environment are disrupted, each one develops a more uniquely individualistic brain organization pattern.”

 

[Ericho]

I took an IQ test and I don't quite recall, but I think I got a score of 140. I have a huge interest in trivia and the like, so I completely believe this.

 

[Jennifer T]

I'm a bit curious about what measures "low" functioning anyway. Loud Hands book has an essay by Amy Sequenzia, who identifies herself in it as called "low functioning" because she's autistically mute. So I guess you have to be able to talk. People with adult illiteracy are "low" functioning.

So if you're aspie but not lexical or vocal, does that make you "low" functioning?

Source: People with genes related to autism 'scored better in mental ability tests' | Daily Mail Online

Despite the reputation the Daily mail has (or so I've gathered) I guess it can't hurt to post a link to the actual study (even if it's paid content) to point out it's not something the Daily mail just made up http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201512a.html

For many of us it seem like this "duh"-moment I suppose. But what it also might mean is that we're just good at doing these tests that measure ones IQ (and even IQ as a thing should be taken with a grain of salt).

Now, what I wonder is what exactly "low functioning autism" is then and if, provided there will be more studies and indications that ASD and intelligence are linked, how exactly they are linked if we still speak of someone being "low functioning". I mean, if high intelligence is an integral part of ASD, someone lacking high intelligence might have a different diagnosis I suppose.

However, that also comes down to how to measure someones intelligence and a proper way to actually map out someones mental capabilities. As it is now, intelligence tests are a bit of a joke IMO. Not to mention that the level of functioning also comes down to the expectations the community someone is part of places on you. Afterall, many of us are quite high functioning, yet we still struggle with mainstream education or "regular" employment.

Source: People with genes related to autism 'scored better in mental ability tests' | Daily Mail Online

Despite the reputation the Daily mail has (or so I've gathered) I guess it can't hurt to post a link to the actual study (even if it's paid content) to point out it's not something the Daily mail just made up http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201512a.html

I just came back from a trip from the Autism Specialists with the University of South Carolina with my son, who is diagnosed ASD. We told him about his diagnosis and he was relieved...he said it all makes sense now...Anyway, the doc told him that he is Aspie and is at the highest functioning level of the Spectrum. She explained to him that his gift is intelligence. She said, "You know how your brain is really good at math & science? Well...your brain isn't so good at social skills". He said, "Exactly!"

 

[Jaywalker]

And true intelligence, or a first class intelligence as Mr. Fitzgerald defines it, is so incredibly rare that I can count on two hands the number of people that I've met whom I might classify as having enough objectivity and doubt to be considered truly elite.

In my experience, such "intelligence" (the wrong word, IMO, as intelligence is not a prerequisite) is not rare at all. Many people can objectively see and understand, to whatever extent their intelligence allows, two opposing viewpoints, acknowledging validity and merit of each. In fact, it has been frequently taken to extremes and become problematic, lending false legitimacy to viewpoints with no merit.

 

[apsie]

Consider memetics if you are attempting to quantify intelligence and are including ''open mindedness'' and/or its opposite in the equation.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

I'm a bit curious about what measures "low" functioning anyway. Loud Hands book has an essay by Amy Sequenzia, who identifies herself in it as called "low functioning" because she's autistically mute. So I guess you have to be able to talk. People with adult illiteracy are "low" functioning.

So if you're aspie but not lexical or vocal, does that make you "low" functioning?

Agirl, how are you. Let's be clear, I do not know what I am talking about. This is my spin.
Autism is a spectrum, a range. Let's just arbitrarily call them low, medium and high functioning.
All may have various and sundry issues that make social integration into their cultural world difficult for them.
The L's may be the most challenged or distressed and need support and perhaps a hand relatively offer.
The M's may have better social and/ or coping skills.
The H's (Aspergers) are socially inept but focused and clever and they develop systems and tools that allow many H's not only flourish, even excel, although perceived by the NT's as abrasive, quirky, eccentric, and thus shunned and isolated.
I could be wrong.