Second one of these i have read recently.

I am extremely sceptical. Maybe it’s just the way the article is written it doesn’t appear to be a science publication. The general theme is that ‘autism is genetic’ is a bad theory because it disempowers people. And because if autism is genetic it can’t be cured.

if autism is becoming more prevalent there is an entirely consistent explanation within genetics, and that would be that natural selection is selecting for autism. that is a very uncomfortable thing for people who classify it as a disorder instead of an adaptation.

this is why making a distinction between the social model and the medical model of disability is such a huge issue. I think you can make the argument within the context of the medical model of disability that  autism, at least autism of high functioning people, is not a disability. But within the social model of disability autism is absolutely a disability autistic people find society disabling because it is not set up for them.

The theory has been posited that genes that are selected because of their ability to improve peoples cognitive abilities their ability to focus on details to keep a lot of things in their head at one time, to absorb lots of asocial information quickly, that these genes also in combination often lead to autism. And that the occasional social dysfunction due to autism that this causes is out weighed by the positive effects on cognition in a information rich society.

i’m not saying this theory is necessarily true I’m just saying it’s a viable alternative for why autism can be both increasing and genetic.

I am extremely sceptical. Maybe it’s just the way the article is written it doesn’t appear to be a science publication. The general theme is that ‘autism is genetic’ is a bad theory because it disempowers people. And because if autism is genetic it can’t be cured.

if autism is becoming more prevalent there is an entirely consistent explanation within genetics, and that would be that natural selection is selecting for autism. that is a very uncomfortable thing for people who classify it as a disorder instead of an adaptation.

this is why making a distinction between the social model and the medical model of disability is such a huge issue. I think you can make the argument within the context of the medical model of disability that  autism, at least autism of high functioning people, is not a disability. But within the social model of disability autism is absolutely a disability autistic people find society disabling because it is not set up for them.

The theory has been posited that genes that are selected because of their ability to improve peoples cognitive abilities their ability to focus on details to keep a lot of things in their head at one time, to absorb lots of asocial information quickly, that these genes also in combination often lead to autism. And that the occasional social dysfunction due to autism that this causes is out weighed by the positive effects on cognition in a information rich society.

i’m not saying this theory is necessarily true I’m just saying it’s a viable alternative for why autism can be both increasing and genetic.