Autism IS linked to higher intelligence

[King_Oni]

Autism IS linked to higher intelligence: People with genes related to the condition 'scored better in mental ability tests'

• People carrying autism genes scored better on intelligent tests
• Genetic factors in autism associated with heightened mental ability
• But experts warn relationship between autism and intelligence is 'not clear'

The genes linked with autism are thought to promote higher intelligence, scientists believe.

Genetic factors, thought to play a role in autism, are associated with heightened mental ability in people who do not have the developmental condition, a new study has revealed.

Almost 10,000 people living in Scotland had their DNA analysed, as part of the research.

They were then put through a series of intelligence tests.

Those carrying genetic variants linked to autism had slightly better test scores on average than those who did not carry the autism genes.

In addition, further evidence of the association emerged when the same tests were carried out on 921 teenagers, who were taking part in an Australian twin study.

The nature of the relationship between autism and intelligence is not clear, said the researchers.

Although up to 70 per cent of people with autism have a mental disability, some individuals with the disorder can exhibit higher than average non-verbal intelligence.

This form of intelligence allows complex problems to be solved using reasoning skills requiring little or no use of language, which is impaired in people with autism.

Dr Toni-Kim Clarke, of the University of Edinburgh's Division of Psychiatry, who led the study, said: '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.'

Co-author Professor Nick Martin, from 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.'

The findings appear in the journal Molecular Psychiatry.

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

 

[King_Oni]

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.

 

[Aspergirl4hire]

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.

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?

 

[Ylva]

I don't believe in fundamental attributes, and therefore don't believe intelligent is something you "are" or "are not". Still, I can see how interesting sensory experiences would make one get into the habit of thinking about things, which would help.

Certain people (and many of them) seem to be in the habit of equating "not speaking" with "not understanding". The very people who pride themselves on their ability to read body language, apparently. Remember when "mute" was used as a euphemism or even synonym for "stupid"? I do, and I grew up in the nineties.

Yeah, I think functioning labels are handed out according to one's ability to speak vocally.

 

[AsheSkyler]

By this point, I could care less about IQ and EQ tests. There needs to be a CS test. Common sense. So then we know who the people are who need the product warning labels such as "please do not use the hairdryer while in the shower".

 

[Slithytoves]

I don't mean to be a bummer, but neither the article nor the study say quite what you're concluding. See these highlighted quotes from the Daily Mail article:

"Genetic factors, thought to play a role in autism, are associated with heightened mental ability in people who do not have the developmental condition, a new study has revealed."

"Although up to 70 per cent of people with autism have a mental disability, some individuals with the disorder can exhibit higher than average non-verbal intelligence."

"Dr Toni-Kim Clarke, of the University of Edinburgh's Division of Psychiatry, who led the study, said: 'Our findings show that genetic variation which increases risk for autism is associated with better cognitive ability in non-autistic individuals."

I'm sorry to say there's nothing here, in other articles about the findings from Science Daily and elsewhere, or in the full-text of the study in Nature (which requires a subscription or institutional license), that suggests people who actually have spectrum conditions have heightened intellectual ability. This is another reason why I don't like Aspies being subsumed under a single ASD diagnostic umbrella. It's going to dissuade good scientists from doing Asperger's-specific research, which will make proving speculation that Aspies are smarter than the average bear harder and less likely.

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

Everything I've read indicates that "low-functioning" autism is defined primarily by near or total inability to use spoken language, but things like extreme sensory sensitivity, extreme stimming, and correlate features like epilepsy are examples of other traits factored in. Some people have a very hard time with the term "low-functioning", evidently because it seems somehow diminishing of personhood. I get that, but I try to think of the term objectively. What we're talking about is functioning in the social and physical environment. If an autistic's symptoms are severe enough that their daily functioning is seriously impaired, I think it's a fair designation to use. It's the tone in which the term is sometimes used that makes it denigrating.

 

[wyverary]

My personal opinion, which I should stress is not backed up by any studies that I am aware of, is that those on the autism spectrum score higher on IQ tests simply because their special interests compel them to pursue topics which may be of a higher intellectual level than that of the average person. We score higher on IQ tests because we happen to have sought out the knowledge that can prove an advantage on such a test...I remember, once, when being evaluated, to identify the author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and I said "Well, it's Charles Ludwig Dodgson or Lewis Carroll." And the evaluator looked down at his papers, and said, "Well, you know, both of those answers are considered acceptable!" I think the results of IQ tests, sadly, rely on how much an individual is able to learn and to collect facts, which does a disservice to those who might not have such resources, say, in a very poor district. So...essentially, I think the results more depend both on what one has access to and how far one is able to pursue such information. Because of this, I have absolutely no trouble believing that those with AS may have a higher-than-average IQ, but I doubt as to whether it is directly connected to the condition.

 

[GoofKing]

Meh, King Oni is right about taking an IQ with a grain of salt and I'm not sure if society even understands what an IQ really means, hell I'm not fully sure but I think it has to do with the capacity of the brain and the rate it learns. With that in mind, I'm sure those with low IQ's or with MR can eventually learn to be functioning with the right amount of support and teaching, meaning it might take a few years or even a lifetime to learn to be functioning but they can do it.

I just wish society and people would be more understanding and stop judging people with MR, Autism, or any other learning disability as broken people and see how idiotic they could be at times.

By this point, I could care less about IQ and EQ tests. There needs to be a CS test. Common sense. So then we know who the people are who need the product warning labels such as "please do not use the hairdryer while in the shower".

Actually, that's not a bad idea. Why don't we have CS tests instead of IQ tests ? lol My common sense can be pretty absent at times

 

[watersprite]

I don't believe in fundamental attributes, and therefore don't believe intelligent is something you "are" or "are not". Still, I can see how interesting sensory experiences would make one get into the habit of thinking about things, which would help.

Certain people (and many of them) seem to be in the habit of equating "not speaking" with "not understanding". The very people who pride themselves on their ability to read body language, apparently. Remember when "mute" was used as a euphemism or even synonym for "stupid"? I do, and I grew up in the nineties.

Yeah, I think functioning labels are handed out according to one's ability to speak vocally.

Well said, and so important it bears a writing an article or thesis about. It applies to me, and it applies to my son who easily tested into the gifted classes program at school, but has a stutter. All his life strangers and my relatives have assumed he's "not understanding"; one person even called us a name which I won't write. And they think they are the smart ones.

Does anyone know if there even are tests to measure other kinds of intelligence - like common sense as you mentioned above, and others along the lines of Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences theory?

 

[SignOfLazarus]

The abstract of the article doesn't really make me reach these specific conclusions. I usually try to get a hold of source material as well before really accepting news reporting of studies, etc. It's often skewed or misrepresented. Some times intentionally, sometimes not. I just like to know what I'm looking at.

Still working on getting this one

 

[Nitro]

Low functioning is a label attached to humans by those who are under the opinion that they are higher functioning. The scale isn't a fair way to categorize people.It wouldn't fly if you tried to place labels in a NT society either. There may be many hidden talents that those who are labeled low functioning have that aren't revealed due to lack of communication with them. Your knowledge lies where your interests are,the only true measure of an IQ would be there instead of a generalized test of overall knowledge.

 

[King_Oni]

By this point, I could care less about IQ and EQ tests. There needs to be a CS test. Common sense. So then we know who the people are who need the product warning labels such as "please do not use the hairdryer while in the shower".

But we do have this test... it's called natural selection

 

[Jaywalker]

There needs to be a CS test. Common sense.

So we can avoid them if they score highly?

Saying someone has common sense is a diplomatic way of saying someone has no sense at all. That's the only sense that's common. A person who uses common sense is someone who knows absolutely nothing about the task at hand but proceeds confidently anyway. It's not a good thing!

 

[Ylva]

Saying someone has common sense is a diplomatic way of saying someone has no sense at all. That's the only sense that's common. A person who uses common sense is someone who knows absolutely nothing about the task at hand but proceeds confidently anyway. It's not a good thing!

I'd sooner go with the interpretation that "common sense" is a misnomer. Although, granted, it does involve a lot of prejudice, so maybe you are in the right.

 

[AsheSkyler]

Actually, that's not a bad idea. Why don't we have CS tests instead of IQ tests ? lol My common sense can be pretty absent at times

Mine too! I had a good one last night that left me sweeping the floor for quite a while. Ack...

But we do have this test... it's called natural selection

Given the people I have met, I am absolutely terrified to see what was weeded out in favor of some of the ones we've got.

So we can avoid them if they score highly?

Saying someone has common sense is a diplomatic way of saying someone has no sense at all. That's the only sense that's common. A person who uses common sense is someone who knows absolutely nothing about the task at hand but proceeds confidently anyway. It's not a good thing!

Eh, I disagree. Common sense is sound judgment based on simple perception and not necessarily on explicit knowledge. In example, a person with decent common sense would know by touching or looking at a cactus that it would not be a comfortable chair and they would not need the explicit knowledge of plopping their backside down on it for an in-depth knowledge of just how painful it would be. I'd certainly not want somebody with low common sense to come in and decorate my house, they'd put a candle by the curtains, arrange the couch in front of the door, and store the pesticide in the pantry next to my macaroni.

 

[Jaywalker]

Common sense is sound judgment based on simple perception and not necessarily on explicit knowledge.

By definition, common sense is sense that is common to everybody. That's an empty set, hence, common sense is no sense at all.

Edit to add:
I'm not trying to be pedantic. I've learned in life that beyond the most basic levels, most subjects involve knowledge that is counterintuitive.

For example, when riding a bicycle in traffic (in a right side drive country) without a bike lane, if cars pass to closely, the correct remedy is to move left, farther into the lane. Using "common sense" and moving right will exacerbate the problem.

In portrait photography, if the lighting is too harsh, the light source should be moved closer to the subject, not farther away. "Common sense" would suggest otherwise.

In finance, whether personal, national, or somewhere in between, the cost of not making a purchase is usually not zero, and is often higher than making the purchase. The "common sense" comparison is price of item versus zero.

In the toss of a fair coin, under certain common conditions, the two sides are not equally likely to come up. "Common sense" suggests one side is as likely as the other.

In mathematics, "common sense" would suggest that the set Z = {...,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,...}, i.e., the integers, has twice as many elements as the set E = {...,-6,-4,-2,0,2,4,6,...}, i.e., the even integers, when the two sets actually have exactly the same number of elements.

Using "common sense" often leads one to take the wrong action. Sometimes the consequences are can be serious. "Common sense" should never replace actual knowledge.

 

[AsheSkyler]

By definition, common sense is sense that is common to everybody. That's an empty set, hence, common sense is no sense at all.

Edit to add:
I'm not trying to be pedantic. I've learned in life that beyond the most basic levels, most subjects involve knowledge that is counterintuitive.

For example, when riding a bicycle in traffic (in a right side drive country) without a bike lane, if cars pass to closely, the correct remedy is to move left, farther into the lane. Using "common sense" and moving right will exacerbate the problem.

In portrait photography, if the lighting is too harsh, the light source should be moved closer to the subject, not farther away. "Common sense" would suggest otherwise.

In finance, whether personal, national, or somewhere in between, the cost of not making a purchase is usually not zero, and is often higher than making the purchase. The "common sense" comparison is price of item versus zero.

In the toss of a fair coin, under certain common conditions, the two sides are not equally likely to come up. "Common sense" suggests one side is as likely as the other.

In mathematics, "common sense" would suggest that the set Z = {...,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,...}, i.e., the integers, has twice as many elements as the set E = {...,-6,-4,-2,0,2,4,6,...}, i.e., the even integers, when the two sets actually have exactly the same number of elements.

Using "common sense" often leads one to take the wrong action. Sometimes the consequences are can be serious. "Common sense" should never replace actual knowledge.

I think you've completely missed my point.

 

[Jaywalker]

I think you've completely missed my point.

Not at all. What you are seeking to test for is not common sense, but rather general and local knowledge. There's nothing common about it; some have it, some don't.

 

[wyverary]

Mine too! I had a good one last night that left me sweeping the floor for quite a while. Ack...


Given the people I have met, I am absolutely terrified to see what was weeded out in favor of some of the ones we've got.


Eh, I disagree. Common sense is sound judgment based on simple perception and not necessarily on explicit knowledge. In example, a person with decent common sense would know by touching or looking at a cactus that it would not be a comfortable chair and they would not need the explicit knowledge of plopping their backside down on it for an in-depth knowledge of just how painful it would be. I'd certainly not want somebody with low common sense to come in and decorate my house, they'd put a candle by the curtains, arrange the couch in front of the door, and store the pesticide in the pantry next to my macaroni.

By definition, common sense is sense that is common to everybody. That's an empty set, hence, common sense is no sense at all.

Edit to add:
I'm not trying to be pedantic. I've learned in life that beyond the most basic levels, most subjects involve knowledge that is counterintuitive.

For example, when riding a bicycle in traffic (in a right side drive country) without a bike lane, if cars pass to closely, the correct remedy is to move left, farther into the lane. Using "common sense" and moving right will exacerbate the problem.

In portrait photography, if the lighting is too harsh, the light source should be moved closer to the subject, not farther away. "Common sense" would suggest otherwise.

In finance, whether personal, national, or somewhere in between, the cost of not making a purchase is usually not zero, and is often higher than making the purchase. The "common sense" comparison is price of item versus zero.

In the toss of a fair coin, under certain common conditions, the two sides are not equally likely to come up. "Common sense" suggests one side is as likely as the other.

In mathematics, "common sense" would suggest that the set Z = {...,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,...}, i.e., the integers, has twice as many elements as the set E = {...,-6,-4,-2,0,2,4,6,...}, i.e., the even integers, when the two sets actually have exactly the same number of elements.

Using "common sense" often leads one to take the wrong action. Sometimes the consequences are can be serious. "Common sense" should never replace actual knowledge.

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.

 

[Kobus]

I dint read all the post, only the fisrt few, so sorry if im off topic or just repeating someones point. I need to get back to work so ill read them later.

Personally I hate IQ tests, because it gives people the idea that your intelligence is concrete and cant change. I am no spycologist or biologist but your body replace itself every 7 years and your brain is like putty that is formed by your response to life. I almost wa ted to scream at my teacher when she stated telling kids that they should be realistic and not aim for too high marks and not expect to be in a job that makes them happy. I almost dumbed wikipedia, youtube and a few other books on her. I almost stood up and stated explaining the brain to her. I feel the link between autism and inteligence lies in the way our hormones (hormones play a big role in how living organisms develop) is used and produced, and we find joy in knowledge.

(I dont have time to read the post but my reply is almost a book)