

Nature Special: The Autism Enigma - tokenadult
http://www.nature.com/news/specials/autism/index.html

======
robinhouston
I thought the most interesting piece in this series was the article about how
autism can be a positive advantage in some areas of human activity, including
science.

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7371/full/479033a...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7371/full/479033a.html)

It reminds me of Temple Grandin’s line: “Who do you think made the first stone
spear? That wasn't the yakkity yaks sitting around the campfire. It was some
Asperger sitting in the back of a cave figuring out how to chip rocks into
spearheads.”

~~~
eru
Nah, the spear was probably invented by some kind of ancient Feynman, who also
got all the girls.

------
mkramlich
Autism sounds like truly a bad thing, truly a disease or bad health condition.
But some of what the psychology profession considers to be in the autism
"range", like Asperger's, instead sounds an awful lot to me like someone who's
just smart and intellectual, and actually has a better/higher-functioning
mind, than the average person. This would seem to be borne out by the fact
that these "conditions" are more prevalent in scientists, engineers and their
children. From my perspective, yes, people who have a much more powerful mind,
greater analytical abilities, people who can think visually, three-
dimensionally, hyper-logically, etc. are going to sound/look/act strange to
people who don't do these things and don't have these abilities. But that
doesn't mean it's bad. Or rather, it doesn't mean the "strange" person has
something wrong or non-ideal about them -- it may be the "normal" person who's
defective or non-ideal.

~~~
kellishaver
I understand, I think, what you're saying - that a lot of what is perceived as
"wrong" with a person with Asperger's is simply a matter of differing
perspective and differing levels/types of comprehension.

In some ways, I agree. I think a lot of the quirks in these cases aren't
problems, just differences. However, that doesn't explain all of it.

For instance, what about the problems that many on the autism spectrum have
with various types of sensory integration? It is often not simply a dislike of
loud noises or certain textures of foods, but a physiological response to
them, and one that can't always be re-trained.

Or, taking it one step further, I've heard from several people who have or
whose children have Turette's Syndrome that it shares so many symptoms and
similarities with Asperger's that it feels like it should be on the autism
spectrum, itself - though it's currently not.

Sensory processing issues, tics, stimming, etc. can often be controlled to an
extent, but not overcome.

Should a healthy brain that just works a bit differently still have these
issues? Should it be able to adapt and cope with them? Should a more highly
functional brain be more flexible in this regard, or less? I honestly don't
know. Maybe our flexibility can be attributed more to our lack of perception
rather than an abundance of it.

------
ikirill
I think it's interesting how the focus of the Nature articles is on
elucidating the process by which autism develops and affects people, and not
on whatever coping mechanisms there are for people on ASD or their relatives.
I don't think it is a bad thing, just a particular focus of their research.

On the one hand, it is immensely important to understand the biological basis
of autism. But on the other, they say autism is not understood nearly well
enough now, and there are many people on autism spectrum and their
relatives/friends who need reasonable advice now, grounded in proper
scientific research. Advice for high-functioning ASD people/relatives would
presumably talk about developing social skills, coping behaviours, and
whatever else is needed for them to function well in the wider society.
Identifying the biological basis of ASD seems to be a long-term research
programme with little payoff in the immediate future.

It's not that I think it's wrong to focus on the biology of it, it's just that
they seem to completely skip the psychology aspect of ASD that is probably
just as important.

------
derekreed
I'm surprised there isn't more discussion (in general, on the internet) on the
relationship between the autistic spectrum and programmers.

~~~
ig1
Because it's just bad science.

To quote from the article:

"But autism researchers Christopher Jarrold and David Routh at the University
of Bristol, UK, pointed out that Baron-Cohen reported the analysis of data
only for engineers, not for the other occupations surveyed. After analysing
the same data, they found that fathers of children with autism were more
likely to work in medicine, science and accountancy, as well as engineering,
and less likely to have manual occupations. They suggested that these fathers
were simply more likely to have reached a higher level of education."

