Re: (article) The Science of Success

[Guest guest]

CJ wrote:

> Another way to look at Aspergers. Or any other 'disorder' to which we

> might be predisposed by our genes.

>

> Enjoy,

> ~CJ

At last!

" ...new theory of genetics, which asserts that the very genes that

give us the most trouble as a species, causing behaviors that are

self-destructive and antisocial, also underlie humankind’s phenomenal

adaptability and evolutionary success. "

-------------------------------------------------

*** I was going to let this slide by. In the end I just couldn't. The

subject matter is *simply too important* not to comment!

I've been chasing after that idea (quoted above) since about 1966, after

reading

Karlsson J.: The biological basis of schizophrenia. Springfield (Ill):

C ; 1966.

The author, an Icelandic experimentalist, both MD *and* geneticist,

posits *just that* idea (and inter alia suggests that autism might be

involved as well).

A few years later I read JM Lerner: Heredity, Evolution and Society; San

Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman and Co. 1968.

Lerner (population geneticist and Natl Acad Sciences member) brought

up the very same idea: " underlie humankind’s phenomenal adaptability and

evolutionary success " .

A bit later, and for three years, I taught a university course

(Genetics and Society) embodying some of those same ideas and using

Lerner as my text.

[Asidem: I'd met Karlsson once at a seminar; we both had been graduate

students under Curt Stern (in his day the 'Grand Old Man' of human

genetics). Lerner was my Department Chair, *and* a member of my Thesis

Committee.]

Other books and articles, saying similar things, came and went with

equally little notice. The mental-health people just. weren't. ready.

In the ensuing years, in conversations live and on the Internet, I

pushed hard on the idea that cognitive style and the behavior it

engendered were part and parcel of *ongoing* human evolution.

When everything *else* about humans so clearly was changing in

response to " natural selection " (I argued), how could our neurology -

our brain - be exempt? ...Be uniquely an exception?

By 2004 I'd been studying carefully the literature on autism in

particular, and also other behavior phenotypes that seemed to me related

in some way.

It became obvious to me that whatever genes might be responsible for

the whole autism spectrum (and AS especially), they *must* be in

" genetic equilibrium " within human populations. That is, those genes

must have *both* good *and* bad phenotypic consequences.

They'd be *maintained* in the population under " balancing selection "

with a frequencies dependent on particular gene-environment interactions.

I speculated the phenotypes ultimately would be shown to have

non-trivial prevalence. I expected autism to be about 1-2%, as had been

shown already for schizophrenia.

NB: I assume everyone here knows US Federal and State agencies agree now

it's about 1%, ...in California at least?

Fast forward: In the last few years there's been plenty of experimental

evidence to support the general notion. And a few of the " autism "

leading lights, Baron-Cohen and Attwood in particular, have come

*th-a-a-at close* to saying it (and saying it in print): autists are a

*constant sub-set* of the human population. As " normal " , NOT pathology.

Like blue eyes and blond hair are; less noticeable of course. <g>

NB: *I'd* go so far as to add we (autism-spectrum) are the atavistic

trace of a long-since absorbed *biological race*. Our genes remain in

the population today because, on balance, they're *valuable*!

[Asidem & FWIW: The essence of my words (here) was on one of my

web-pages until something like a year ago, when I put the page " on

hiatus " . One day it'll be back.]

I predict within a few years that idea (constant sub-set; NOT pathology)

will be the dominant position among mental-health professionals and others.

Except maybe among US " pros " , who continue woefully and uniquely

behind the curve in their perceptions and thinking.

Note also, both in this forum and the lay press & literature, articles

are appearing which describe *businesses* (mostly non-US) _already_

grasping the Atlantic's idea: Providing environments which *cater to and

build* autists' potential - to everyone's advantage. Some educational

institutions, even universities, are beginning to do the same and for

the same reasons.

*** I say all this, even toot my own horn, _in support_ of the ideas in

The Atlantic's article. Its core propositions are *important*.

- Bill, dx AS in 2005; ...geneticist, who believes

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> Most of us have genes that make us as hardy as dandelions: able to take

> root and survive almost anywhere. A few of us, however, are more like

> the orchid: fragile and fickle, but capable of blooming spectacularly if

> given greenhouse care. So holds a provocative new theory of genetics,

> which asserts that the very genes that give us the most trouble as a

> species, causing behaviors that are self-destructive and antisocial,

> also underlie humankind’s phenomenal adaptability and evolutionary

> success. With a bad environment and poor parenting, orchid children can

> end up depressed, drug-addicted, or in jail—but with the right

> environment and good parenting, they can grow up to be society’s most

> creative, successful, and happy people.

>

> more...

> http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/dobbs-orchid-gene

[end of email & response]