I'm interested to get my fellow #ActuallyAutistic folks' takes on this.

Neuroscience News: Is Inflammation in Childhood A Mechanistic Link to Neurodevelopmental Disorders?
https://neurosciencenews.com/neurodevelopment-inflammation-24941/

@actuallyautistic
@neurodivergence

@hosford42 @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence I am dubious of the article. First it is presented in the hook & single answer style —so it sort of smells like snake oil. Seems odd with a single author too. The repeated lumping together of Autism and Schizophrenia is old 60's psych. The title captures framing this as there is one source and we will sell you one pill that fixes you—reality & complexity be damned. This puts Docs/insurers with "here's a solution, too bad it didn't help you outlier."

@null_hypothesis @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence I was surprised to learn that there are a lot of genes that increase the probability of both autism and schizophrenia. It always seemed like they were 180° opposites to me, despite the 60's psych tropes you mentioned.

@hosford42 @null_hypothesis @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence

They're reporting on correlations, not causes.

@26pglt @null_hypothesis @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the genes they identify that are correlated with multiple kinds of neurodivergence are in fact genes which modulate neurotypicality in some way. They always look at neurotypicality as the default setting, as if that is how the system is supposed to work and neurodivergences are failure modes. But I think there are multiple ways the system is supposed to work (evolutionarily speaking). If they put them on equal footing in their research, they'll learn a lot more about all of them, because their assumptions won't mask patterns that don't match them anymore.

@hosford42 @26pglt @null_hypothesis @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence There's a widespread bias towards teleological reasoning.

@foolishowl @hosford42 @26pglt @null_hypothesis @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence

True (bias toward teleological reasoning) and, in my opinion, harmless and a natural bias for humans of all kinds. Harmless provided that projected intention does not overwhelm observed outcome, and that we recognize observed outcome is always contextual and partial. In other words, the purpose of a system is what it does (POSIWID), but we never get to observe the entirety of what it does.

In the context of this discussion, the various components of our neurological growth and processes have a purpose (probably), but the nature and extent of that purpose is something that we should observe rather than infer, and we should always recognize that we will never have the full picture. If we can maintain that perspective in research, than we may be able to learn some things and alleviate some suffering without creating more harm than benefit.

@foolishowl @hosford42 @26pglt @null_hypothesis @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence

On the harmful side of the coin, however, research into gene expression that looks for how the outcome "should" be or measures outcome only in limited contexts (white capitalism, for example) is an ableist path to destructive social control and eugenics that must always be avoided. This is why we must be far more careful than we are about non-consensually collecting genetic material, letting lab workers run loose with it, and then casually talking about it through the lens of careless and sensationalist journalists.

@GTMLosAngeles @foolishowl @hosford42 @26pglt @null_hypothesis @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence IIRC a study some time ago found a link between ADHD, autism, depression, high IQ, and a bunch of roughly 70 genes which all regulate brain development. For each one of those genes there is one allele or sometimes two which slightly increases the chances of having a high IQ, but also of being autistic, having ADHD, and having depression.

@LordCaramac @foolishowl @hosford42 @26pglt
T@null_hypothesis@mas.to @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence
This here was for me an informative survey, along similar lines: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927579/

@LordCaramac @foolishowl @hosford42
@26pglt @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence

Also, very important: all measures of intelligence are inherently racist.

@GTMLosAngeles @LordCaramac @foolishowl @26pglt @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence I agree that IQ measures are problematic, at least as currently implemented. But saying they are *all* inherently racist seems a but of a stretch. Can you explain your reasoning? Not to argue. I just want to understand where you're coming from on this.

My own view is that, putting aside the glaring and important methodological problems in how we measure it, what remains a problem is that IQ is misinterpreted and misused as a basis for racism and ableism. But neither of these profound and pervasive problems, IMO, makes the measurement of IQ itself inherently racist or ableist. We measure vision and hearing routinely for health, but racism and ableism doesn't inherently get brought into those discussions. For some reason people can't seem to keep them separate when it comes to intelligence, though, and that is the real problem, IMO.

@hosford42 @LordCaramac @foolishowl @26pglt @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence

There is a lot to unpack here, so this will be long. I am continuing to tag everyone that has been in this thread, but will gladly stop doing that if advised.

We have many definitions of intelligence. Psychology and education are the primary (Western scientific) fields where researchers are focusing on measuring levels of intelligence. In those fields, the definitions of intelligence involve learning and comprehension of concepts determined to be objectively real and objectively useful. The supposed objectively buried in these definitions is where racism enters, in my view.

I can start with an example. It is deemed to be "intelligence" that a human learns two plus two equals four. It is not deemed to be "intelligence" that a human learns that the way sunlight filters through those leaves pleases me. It would be deemed "intelligence", however, to learn that the way sunlight filters through those trees pleases lots of people. Why? Researchers might say that the "lots of people" concept shows complex thinking beyond sensation. I say that the "lots of people" concept provides a way for people with power and privilege to extract value from others - that's what makes the "intelligence" valuable and useful knowledge.

I know that "people with power and privilege" and "extract value from others" sounds pretty odd and artificial to many, but this is what I believe drives "value" in capitalist societies. And the practice of enforcing power and privilege is what drives racism.

Hence, ways to measure intelligence are constructed by practitioners of Western science to determine which individuals are most likely to develop knowledge that is useful for people with power and privilege to extract value and this leads to racist measures of intelligence.

@hosford42 @LordCaramac @foolishowl @26pglt @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence

Also, more directly responsive to Aaron:
- A "stretch" is a very good thing for White people to do.
- Measurements of vision and hearing are absolutely ableist. And, oddly, hearing that does not meet the range deemed 'normal' is in the United States a disability, whereas as 'vision' is not.

@GTMLosAngeles @hosford42 @LordCaramac @foolishowl @26pglt @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence I understand your point about intelligence measuring, bc intelligence is strongly linked to historical and cultural contexts.
But how can you explain vision and hearing measurements are ableist ? Vision and hearing ranges are species-defined and not relative to cultural milieux such as intelligence.

@Dremmwel @hosford42 @LordCaramac @foolishowl @26pglt
@actuallyautistic @neurodivergence

I am happy to continue to share my thoughts. I will preface this by saying that I am a cisgender white male raised in a western christian culture who is also an autistic queer Buddhist. My professional expertise is economics and teaching college, so my interest in equity issues around racism and ableism is strictly personal. Also, this will be another long-ish response.

For context, Aaron made a nicely articulated point that I was addressing, so let me start with what Aaron side: "We measure vision and hearing routinely for health, but racism and ableism doesn't inherently get brought into those discussions. For some reason people can't seem to keep them separate when it comes to intelligence, though, and that is the real problem, IMO."

I observe a strong bias among other white people to begin with the assumption that an institution or practice is not racist or ableist until shown otherwise (and sometimes requiring that intent to discriminate also be demonstrated). This is not my bias - in fact, I begin with a deliberate bias to assume that institutions and practices in my culture are racist and ableist, unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. I base the on what I have learned about the historical development of my culture and the systemic nature of racism and ableism (and other things that serve to enhance existing power and privilege).

Aaron correctly pointed out that racism and ableism don't usually get brought into discussions about measuring hearing and vision. I am deliberately bringing these topics into the discussion because I think we will all benefit by having these topics discussed, and especially those who are most affected by racism and ableism will benefit.

In my view, the problems of racism and ableism do not flow from our lack of ability to separate race and ability from discussions of "other things", but rather from our (sometimes deliberate) refusal to recognize how racism and ableism permeates what we do.

As for hearing and vision, I will provide just a couple of examples (and recognize that my perspective is limited).

Current methods for evaluating hearing acuity define thresholds of "impairment" when hearing is less than what has been deemed to normal. Whether these definitions are species-wide is an interesting question for which I'd like to see additional information (because I know that lots of other measures determine "normal" based on fairly specific and limited subsets) - that in itself is a racism/ableism discussion about which I have little information.

However, I do know that current measures of hearing acuity demonstrate less "hearing loss" (movement below the threshold) for Black test subjects than white (in some studies) or for darker skinned subjects than lighter skinned (in other studies). If hypothesized connections between low melanin and hearing loss turn out to be correct, then will this be 1) a way to address hearing changes in a more individualized fashion so that everyone's needs are met, or 2) an excuse to further limit the already restricted level of medical care provided to darker skinned patients? This is a racism/ableism discussion that could be very fruitful.

With respect to vision, I return again to the example of definitions for disability in the United States. Many (probably most) variations in ability can be shifted into the normal range ("corrected") with appropriate treatment, equipment, and/or environmental changes, but all still qualify as "disabilities" despite being correctable.

Vision is the exception. There is no obvious reason for this that I know (perhaps someone has more info than me and can tell us). My first guess is that, upon investigation, it will have something very much to do with racism and/or ableism, possibly mediated through markets and political connections. I hope some aspiring researchers will dig into this and better inform us.

@GTMLosAngeles @Dremmwel @LordCaramac @foolishowl @26pglt @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence Measuring relative to the entire species can also be ableist. Why does it matter how well other people can see or hear as compared to you, other than the fact that other people's expectations and demands can induce disability under the social model? What makes it ableist or not is how it affects the person. Are we limiting, controlling, or interfering with the activities and opportunities of people based on relative ability? If so, that it ableism. If, on the other hand, we use tests to empower people and make the activities they choose for themselves more accessible, then that is a positive example of vision or hearing (or intelligence) tests being used to help people. Note that there is no comparison to others necessary for the positive applications of these tests, unlike the examples of ableism.

@GTMLosAngeles @Dremmwel @LordCaramac @foolishowl @26pglt @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence My memory is very poor, for example. That shows up on intelligence tests. If that is used to judge, limit, control, or hamper me in my chosen activities in life, that's ableism. But if instead it is used as a way to identify accommodating tools or behaviors that might help me do what I want -- mnemonics, to-do lists, reminder apps, flexibility or assistance in the workplace -- that's not ableism. That's accommodation. It's very important that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

@hosford42 @GTMLosAngeles @Dremmwel @foolishowl @26pglt @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence My memory is great for facts and knowledge, but it sucks for rembering things I need to do. I can read or hear something I find interesting and can recite it literally word by word from memory decades later, but where did I put my pencil ten minutes ago? What was it that I had to do this week?

@LordCaramac @GTMLosAngeles @Dremmwel @foolishowl @26pglt @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence Yes, exactly! I'm like an encyclopedia for topics of interest. But I literally just told my boss earlier today that I don't remember what I worked on on Friday because I didn't write it down. As for names, dates, or phone numbers...forget it. It's not happening. You might as well ask me to keep coins in a pocket with a hole.

@hosford42

And I remember numbers - all kinds of numbers, just out of the blue. I don't remember faces or names.
I can recognize people if they have a memorable hairstyle. As people sometimes do.

@LordCaramac @GTMLosAngeles @Dremmwel @foolishowl @26pglt @actuallyautistic @neurodivergence