My father has autism (not particularly high or low functioning). My brother inherited it, but I'm completely neurotypical. Will my offspring be at increased risk for autism?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>moeshit weeb poster
>muh autchixm
>my offspring
don't worry about that
>no contribution
>unfunny
>brown skin IRL
He's right OP
, rethink your life and stop killing threads.
The level of science in the question is beyond at least 80% of what I see from glancing at the catalog. You don't realize that because you're a moron.
Is this board just dunning kruger manifest or something? Are there real people here?
>calls others morons with no self-awareness
go back to your safespace weeb boy, you're a long way from home
Wrong board
Brown people stop replying to my post please. Seeking a scientific answer to the question which I am open to discussing.
Liberals are the first to adopt animetroony shit weeb, go on twitter and see their anime pic profiles
>another moron who thinks cute aggression applies to anime because he has no idea what cute aggression is
Anon, I-- well, get your son tested
https://googlethatforyou.com?q=can%20you%20be%20a%20carrier%20of%20autism
No need to make a thread for something you can literally google.
Definitely autism.
Is there some kind of link between sensory processing issues in humans and cat micro-seizures in response to certain sounds?
Do cats have autism?
There is this phenomena in cats were they will apparently respond to certain sounds, like the sound of crinkling plastic, by seemingly gagging and dry heaving.
I have a similar kind of response to certain touch sensations Ie: powdery fresh paper, that makes me want to gag and is a similar feeling to nails on a chalkboard; I've that others feel similarly in response to certain sounds.
Is there a link in the brain processes there?
>Do cats have autism?
No, this is a careless projection of a human issue on animals as a result of anthropomorphizing them. Animals by definition can't have 'autism' because autism involves issues with human socializing and human language.
>Is there a link in the brain processes there?
Scientism.
Autism is a neurological condition, one of it's symptoms is sensory issues.
There might be a link between the perceptive neurology of autistic people and these cats since they have similar micro-seizure behaviour in response to specific sensations.
Me saying cats are autistic was more of a joke, but I genuinely wonder if there is a link between the neurological process that causes these kinds of reactions.
>Autism is a neurological condition, one of it's symptoms is sensory issues.
In short, no. There's no definite proof of autism being a neurological condition. If it was, neurologists would diagnose it, not psychologists or pediatricians.
>they have similar micro-seizure behaviour
A seizure is a medical event. It's not a behavior. Please don't mix them up.
>I'm neurotypical insofar as I don't meet the criteria of autism or sociopathy
So you've got two diagnoses covered. 200 to go... Also you're a girl (I assume) so you could still easily be autistic despite being 'affectionate' and seemingly in tune with social cues.
>Of course autism exists, and there are consistently reproducible traits we can find in autistic people, including low serum oxytocin levels, as an example.
I don't think so. Few of the studies have ever been successfully reproduced and large-scale studies usually contradict the result that another study came up with. As I said before, scientism makes people believe mental health conditions are real illnesses and they don't even need proof.
Being neurotypical colloquially just means not autistic. You can be an idiosyncratic person and still have normal brain structure.
If you don't believe autism is a real condition, I don't know what to tell you. My father and elder brother exhibit all of the traits, including social awkwardness, sensitivity to loud sounds, propensity to memorize and focus on random trivia, occasional fits of rage when antagonized, etc.. Yet I exhibit none of these traits, as if it's binary. The root of my question is really the extent to which autism is polygenic, since if all of this was caused by a spontaneous de novo mutation in the sperm/egg, and it was a dominant trait, then I may have dodged a bullet. But I'm not sure if this is the case.
I highly recommend reading this section of the wikipedia page which may shed some light on your question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism#Genetics
>My father and elder brother exhibit all of the traits, including social awkwardness, sensitivity to loud sounds, propensity to memorize and focus on random trivia, occasional fits of rage when antagonized, etc.
How is this different from being an idiosyncratic person? Why are their traits due to an abnormal brain structure when other idiosyncratic traits are not? I mean, why do you assume that all autism is abnormal brain structure?
>I highly recommend reading this section of the wikipedia page which may shed some light on your question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism#Genetics
Most of which is putative. Yes, you can link some genetic mutations to a small/mediocre number of autism cases. Still ultimately leaves the other 90-95 % or so unexplained. Also correlation ain't causality.
>since if all of this was caused by a spontaneous de novo mutation in the sperm/egg, and it was a dominant trait, then I may have dodged a bullet.
You're weirdly preoccupied with both the wish to prevent 'autism' and the conviction that 'autism' is a bad thing.
I know first hand that autism is a bad thing. As the article notes, autistic people are 20 times less likely to have children than average. It's not a set of traits we developed through evolution, it's a defect. I actually agree that a lot of modern mental illnesses aren't real, like anxiety, depression, ADHD, etc., but others, such as autism or schizophrenia, are real (not to compare the two).
From a lot of what you're saying it seems like you're just not overly familiar with it in the first place, not to mention your accusing me of subscribing to "scientism," which is just silly and I don't think warrants a response.
>I know first hand that autism is a bad thing
Now, that's the interesting question. Is this about autism or your bad relationship with brother/father?
>autistic people are 20 times less likely to have children than average.
I don't think this was mentioned anywhere in the article. It doesn't matter since I know of a study that says 5 to 6 times less likely so the point would still stand.
>it's a defect.
Yet, it still persists and de novo mutations cannot be made responsible for the large majority of all cases indicating that those putative autism genes in fact were probably selected for during our evolutionary development.
>From a lot of what you're saying it seems like you're just not overly familiar with it in the first place
No, I'm very well acquainted with it. I've worked in it, not Autism specifically but working on projects mapping pathways and studying neurogenetic processes of other mental disorders. The results of such studies, as should be clear from my discussion, are often just disappointing. I also know that most people here are scientifically illiterate (can't read papers/studies).
>not to mention your accusing me of subscribing to "scientism
Me saying that you subscribe to "scientism" is actually a more polite form of saying that you have trouble understanding much of the science that is involved in autism and similar conditions or again more politely expressed: you quickly jump to conclusions without ensuring that the arguments/the data actually support your conclusions. The whole discussion here is also clearly driven by a personal motive. You fear autism, you fear that you're a putative carrier of autism and that your child might get autism. Wanna hear my answer? Just don't get the child. Pedigree analysis and twin studies do show that chances are indeed relatively high that your child will turn out autistic (somewhere in the 20-30 % range).
>Is this about autism or your bad relationship with brother/father?
I don't have a bad relationship with either of them. The problem is that their condition is clearly disadvantageous.
>I don't think this was mentioned anywhere in the article
ctrl+f "fecundity"
>Pedigree analysis and twin studies do show that chances are indeed relatively high that your child will turn out autistic (somewhere in the 20-30 % range).
That sounds too high for a general assumption without knowledge of other factors. I might not be in the field like you are, but my intuition is usually quite accurate, and it seems to me that the health of the father is of critical significance when it comes to whether or not an autistic child is conceived. Am I correct in saying there would be fewer unfavorable epigenetic changes and de novo mutations in a male who is in prime health? Clearly, most men are not in very good health nowadays, which is evidenced most clearly by declining testosterone levels.
>That sounds too high for a general assumption without knowledge of other factors.
It's the range that you can expect of a polygenic trait X given: 'your father and brother both have X' and compared to a baseline of 2 %. Maybe I should have adjusted it for other factors, here: biological sex.
>seems to me that the health of the father is of critical significance when it comes to whether or not an autistic child is conceived.
Again, if this was an important, in short: crucial factor, we would already know it. Sure, there are some factors that increase or decrease probability but nothing that would make a real difference except, for example, getting vaccinated against Rubella during pregnancy (which no one has been doing since the '80s anyway). The latter has been associated with autism.
>Am I correct in saying there would be fewer unfavorable epigenetic changes and de novo mutations in a male who is in prime health?
Just to state that: Given the polygenic nature of autism and your family tree, you are predisposed to autism. There's really no point in denying that. It's true that I have criticized models that try to reduce autism to a purely neurological issue, but it's genetic nature is well established. I can't really tell you about epigenetic changes. Personally, I feel like whatever isn't readily visible in a microscope or easily associated with a genetic issue is pushed into the epigenetics box. De novo mutations, as already explained before, can be statistically linked to autism in at most 10 % of all cases and the 'mutational kind' of autism is usually just intellectual disability with autistic features. De novo mutations have less to do with the health of a father than with his age. Again, I point out. De novo mutations that are simply statistically linked to autism aren't necessarily the cause of it. I also point out that autism is a behavioral issue. Autism simply isn't a condition that is fixed for life. People can and do change.
>if this was an important, in short: crucial factor, we would already know it.
Would we? How would they even go about investigating this? As it stands currently, a man is considered to be "in good health" as long as he's not in some kind of disease state. The link between paternal age and autism seems like a tip-off that declining sperm volume/motility is a key factor, and of course modern day low testosterone males are not going to look great in the sperm department.
>the 'mutational kind' of autism is usually just intellectual disability with autistic features.
Interesting, didn't know this. So we could speculate that the paternal age autism connection has less to do with mutations than it does sperm quality?
Most importantly, do you have any opinion as to what could be the cause of such drastically increased incidence of autism in recent years? Here's my logic: If autism didn't exist before modernity, then isn't that an indicator that comparatively poor parental health is the cause of autism today? And if parents are able to return as close as possible to an evolutionarily optimal metabolic/biological state, the chances of them creating an autistic child will be significantly reduced?
Why even type this if you're not going to elaborate?
>How would they even go about investigating this?
Statistics. We have a lot of information in medical records, where people lived when etc.
>The link between paternal age and autism seems like a tip-off that declining sperm volume/motility is a key factor
Which would mean that sperm volume/motility causes epigenetic or other metabolical changes which 1. we should be able to statistically infer from comparing samples that differ in their sperm quality/motility and 2. we would expect to be associated with a number of issues. Again, research has been done on that. I'm in no way an expert but if there was an association, we would probably have found it by now.
>So we could speculate that the paternal age autism connection has less to do with mutations than it does sperm quality?
I don't think so given the reasons above.
>If autism didn't exist before modernity, then isn't that an indicator that comparatively poor parental health is the cause of autism today?
Anon. I don't think you know what living in the 19th century or early 20th century meant. It boggles my mind when people think that your average person back then was not sick, not malnourished, not infected with parasites.
>what could be the cause of such drastically increased incidence of autism in recent years?
The traits associated with what we define as 'autism' are largely genetic, meaning that the prevalence of these traits were likely constant, especially given that they are not due to de novo mutations except in the 10 % > cases where we can putatively posit such a connection. The environment has an influence on these traits but for a number of reasons, some of which I've stated, it's unlikely that they meaningfully impacted the overall prevalence of these traits. My personal take: 1970's autism and modern-day autism are two completely different things. Autism is a logically inconsistent and heterogenous diagnosis that, from my point of view, combines too many traits into one diagnosis.
>My personal take: 1970's autism and modern-day autism are two completely different things
This also explains why any paper published in the '80s or '90s on autism, even if they were reproduced back then, have become disproven or obsolete by now. Pity that hardly any scientist ever pointed that out. It really would have avoided much of the completely unsubstantiated autism panic, not to speak of that that panic revealed a very dark side of otherwise so 'empathetic' people'. It's also meaningless because the life trajectory of someone with e.g. Asperger's syndrome was and still is to this day based and modelled on research done on the lowest-functioning non-verbal autists you could find.
I appreciate your input. With advances in genome sequencing and machine learning, I've heard we will be able to estimate IQ from genome with 0.7 correlation. Do you think we would be able to do the same with autism? Specifically wondering with regard to embryo selection.
I wasn't trying to imply that everyone was healthy before modern times, but that the kinds of health issues we are experiencing nowadays are evolutionarily novel -- for example, constant exposure to dioxins and the like, not just malnutrition.
It wasn't so bad. He was still a great father in a lot of ways. I just had to figure a lot of things out myself, because he never really sat me down and taught me anything. It was more like he taught me by experience by providing me with healthy experiences during my youth, like selecting anime for me and my brother to watch, and organizing outings with me and my friends where we were able to experience a lot of unstructured play in novel locations. It's only in retrospect that I realize what a positive effect that had on my development.
I think what would be most striking to most people is that we never really talked much at all. With autistic people, a lot of the time they just have nothing to say, and if they do try to interact, things can get a little weird. There were many occasions where I cringed a bit as he was interacting with family friends and whatnot where he monologued about a hobby of his for minutes on end, never interested in what other people had to say. Come to think of it, there are probably a lot of unusual aspects of the experience that I haven't had the chance to properly contrast with that of people with neurotypical parents.
Interesting, thanks for relating your experience. Kind of reminds me of the Montessori method of education.
>every single post asking how to stop autism. autistic
>petty with minor things like cringy behavior
also autistic
>obsessed with some weird environment triggers for autism
also autistic
Looks pretty autistic to me. You sure, you're not autistic and just in denial? Autism in women it's different
I'm not sure how I could be autistic without matching any of the symptoms of autism. For one thing, I am extremely socially sensitive, which is the antithesis of an autistic trait. I have always been aware of and respectful towards other people, and able to understand what they are feeling. Naturally, that social sensitivity extends to situations like my father being awkward in front of guests, but I wouldn't say that I'm petty about it per se. I just notice.
In my experience the drawbacks of autism far outweigh any potential benefit, and as such, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to want to have non-autistic children. It actually does resemble brain damage in some respects, for example my brother had to go to speech therapy. He does have some uncanny talents, but they in no way make up for the deficits conferred by the disorder. The only way you could believe that autism isn't necessarily undesirable is if you don't know any genuinely autistic people.
>Animals by definition can't have 'autism' because autism involves issues with human socializing and human language.
I feel like the definition of autism as having to be impairing is dumb because then what do you call it if you have "autism" and yet it somehow is not debilitating?
>I feel like the definition of autism as having to be impairing is dumb because then what do you call it if you have "autism" and yet it somehow is not debilitating?
Oh, baby. Don't get me started on that one. I always found that the conversation around autism or ADHD or schizophrenia was distinctively cult-like and epistemically blind. It's not that hard to accept that some people are just born to suck at certain things and that some people might suck at things but later don't.
>My father has autism (not particularly high or low functioning). My brother inherited it, but I'm completely neurotypical
>On IQfy
>Anime picture
You're not neurotypical. I can already tell.
>Will my offspring be at increased risk for autism?
Well, depends whether or not it makes sense to think that you can be at risk of something that doesn't actually exist.
I'm neurotypical insofar as I don't meet the criteria of autism or sociopathy. I'm a highly affectionate person and am also tuned into social cues, which all but precludes my having ASD. I'm just on IQfy because I believe in the culture of free speech and anonymity.
>Well, depends whether or not it makes sense to think that you can be at risk of something that doesn't actually exist.
Of course autism exists, and there are consistently reproducible traits we can find in autistic people, including low serum oxytocin levels, as an example.
Doesn't it say it all that you people have such an exaggerated reaction to it in the first place?
Neurologists do diagnose autism.
It's a Neurodevelopmental disorder.
Sorry for deleting the other post. I do that if it contains typos or if I'm unhappy with how I phrased something.
>Neurologists do diagnose autism. It's a Neurodevelopmental disorder.
Given the lack of actual neurological evidence for autism, how do neurologists diagnose it? I assume, similarly to psychologists with a questionnaire? I wish, there was hard neurological data so we could finally settle the question but all people usually give are vague ideas and non-reproduced or already disproven studies. If autism is neurogenetic, why was its prevalence 0.05 % in 1980 but now increased to something like 3 % in 2020? Because we're better at detecting it? How could we miss out on 98 % of all cases with a clearly neurological disorder? It should have appeared on some machine back then too.
Also, to clarify things. No, I don't suggest that vaccines or phone radication is responsible. I only think that when people claim that X is neurological, they should also be able to point to the part of the brain that causes it. Until now, no one could and I stay with my null hypothesis. That's all. I'm off.
What's it like growing up with an autistic dad?
More than the average person yes, but much higher if u breed with a autistic waifu
>cute girl anime gif
>i'm neurotypical.
My fricking ass you are.