Slashdot Mirror
Genetic Testing For Geekiness?
Paul Johnson writes "MSNBC is carrying an article wondering about how to handle a possible future genetic test for autism. Raising a severely autistic child is a heartbreaking grind, and many people (and legal systems) consider termination to be a reasonable choice where the fetus carries other genetic disorders such as Downs Syndrome. But this might also prevent the birth of future geniuses too. The article flippantly uses Bill Gates as an example (Gates is widely thought to have Asperger's syndrome), although Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison are also thought to have been similarly "different". And there is some reason to believe that "geekiness" in general is actually the place where autism shades into 'normal'."
No doubt this will be modded down, but on a similar note when the genetic test for homosexuality comes out, who wants to bet the current foes of private health care decisions will be first in line to abort their fetuses? They would have aborted Alan Turing and let the Germans win.
It is thought that Einstein had ADD. What would have happened if we gave him drugs?
Einstein: Leave me alone, i'm depressed!
Dashboard Widgets
My father was a ..yes.. a for real..."Rocket Scientist" working for the Air Force back in the 60s. Back then he said the Officer's Club hated to see him and his work buddies coming and loved the pilots. Why? Because the pilots order Beer by the tanker load. Scientists order one beer and used up all the napkins writing down equations. To any jock, a group of nerds talking must be super boring, but then, that is not a measure of the conversation but rather of the jock mental faculties.
-In a related note to the parent post: How many Geeks are dyslexic?
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
I know so many people with IQ's over 110
probably not as many as you think, or as many as they think.
As someone who sas scored over 160 on IQ tests many times, I can honestly say IQ is crap.
Motivation is the key to innovation and success.
I find it interesting that just because she is in a wheel chair you assume her IQ is less.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"many people (and legal systems) consider termination to be a reasonable choice where the fetus carries other genetic disorders such as Downs Syndrome.
Anyone else find it heartbreaking how "flippingly" people suggest murder as a way of dealing with the handicapped? If it's alright destroy them before birth, simply because we feel these people are a nuisance, how much value for life do we really have? And how much hate must one have for the mentally retarded before they'll decide to kill them?
Life is precious, and should be protected. How rewarding it is to help those in need, and care for those who need protection.
Speaking as someone who is socialy awkward and classified as agenius(I cant spell ,do not take that into account .. )I know all too well the misfits who get thrown into the catogry . . ,high IQ is not equalto genius. .\ ,No condition is . It just so hapens several of a group may show the signs but this does not make the rule
All too often folks who are clearly of genius level inteligence are ignored in favour of quick witted kids who can make trucks with lego at age 2
Genius though is an off title in many terms
Einstein was not your model High IQ student , the same can be said for many
Austism is not a mesure of IQ either
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Many years ago (early 80's), I worked for Tandy Corporation. We had a meeting with Bill and a few other folks from Microsoft. Bill spent most of the meeting sitting sideways in his chair, rocking back and forth, chewing on the leather band of his wristwatch. He seemed to not be paying any attention, but it was obvious from the questions he asked that he was listening to everything.
I feel for you. I have two nephews who had birth defects, one mild and one serious. They're great kids and generally happy. Caring for them was very hard on the parents, likely leading to their divorce and a lifetime of constant medical care. I have a second cousin who was born with Down's Syndrome and it's fairly mild. His parents love him very much and he's gotten great support.
We were in a situation with our second daughter where there was a one-in-twenty chance she might be born with Down's Syndrome. We went ahead and got the tests done and fortunately all went well.
On the other hand, we probably wouldn't have carried her to term if she had it. The reasons are complicated, but they didn't feel entirely selfish. What I appreciate about our society is that we're allowed to make decisions about our own family.
Even if you plan on having the child anyway, it can be good to know. Children with Down's Syndrome have a higher chance of birth defects and you can have a surgeon on call should the need arise.
Actually smarter people tend to be better adjusted than most folks. It is a myth that intelligence leads to misery.
Also this entire topic is hilarious. Linking autism to geekiness?
I can only assume most people have never genuinely encountered an autistic or person with aspergers.
They don't function well, and if newton or einstien had it, it is to their credit they achieved what they did, inspite of their condition.
I may disagree with you sometimes, but in the end, Mr. Catsro, I think you're the best evidence Slashdot has to offer that spelling isn't always correlated with intelligence. Often, but not always.
I've known plenty of dyslexic folks growing up and in college, and some of them are the most creative individuals I've ever met (and not just creative spellers).Hope you don't take this as a flame.
don't be so quick to judge those who don't make the same decisions as you. in other cultures a child born with such a defect would be left in the woods, or similarly cast out. there are many of us who would rather invest our parenting efforts and limited time raising a child who will grow up to be independent and able to carry on our genetic line.
not all of us believe that that cluster of cells which has implanted itself in a woman's uterus has a soul, or is even yet a human being with all the rights that accompany such status, and would rather stop a frustrating and problematic situation before it develops into an irreversible one.
don't get me wrong- i respect your choice. it's noble, and all that. but nobody should be forced to live with an avoidable anomalous situation and accept it as "god's will", as not everyone believes that.
There is a chance a given child will be the next Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pot Pol, Jeffery Dahmer, or Charles Manson.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
You're right, though, IQ is not equal to genius. (Which makes me wonder how you were "classified as a genius" except via an IQ test - unless you're a MacArthur recipient.) Genius generally requires a high IQ as well as a high level of creative productivity. And many high IQ kids ARE ignored, because their teachers misunderstand the gifted - my fiance was referred for IQ testing for mental retardation because he rarely spoke and didn't play with the other kids. They tested him, then said Oops, sorry, he belongs in the gifted program, not the special school for MR kids. Our bad.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Because you can't predict any of these things, it's much better NOT to reduce our genetic diversity by artificial selection rules:
1. how the gene may mutate in the future (i.e. it may produce beneficial effects - this is key.)
2. how the gene will manifest in adulthood.
3. the effect of the gene on the person's activity as a whole, and thereby, on society.
etc.
The only cases in which I would support aborting babies with specific genes would be if so many people with a severe problem are born that it becomes an unmanageable burden on society, or the problem is so crippling that the person is completely unable to function. But in general, we need to maintain diversity in order to ensure our continued existence.
No one knows how many or what sorts of people will be able to develop immunity to future epidemics, or what sorts of people will be best able to do the technological work necessary for a future technology. For all we know, severely autistic people could save humanity.
It's been theorized that the band of humans that crossed the bering strait into North America could have numbered as few as 10 or so. Presumably, many others died along the way. Their diversity increased the likelihood that at least a few would complete the journey.
One economist recently claimed that legal abortion led to a drop in crime rates - which would favor the other side of this argument. It's an interesting question.
There are all kinds of good and bad in the Universe, observable at every intelligence level. To claim that sadness is the result of your ability to observe that which is bad is shortsighted.
The "ignorance is bliss" crowd tends to avoid answering "What intellignece level would provide me peak happiness?" Perhaps I should have "lifetime fast food manager" intelligence to find maximum joy. How about "still wearing diapers at 35" intelligence? Perhaps being comatose is my best option? After all, there are proven ways both physical and chemical by which I could permanently assume a lower intelligence level.
(I'd like to interject an apology for appearing to objectify those who fit in any of the above categories)
Brain chemistry aside, your happiness correlates to your emotional ability to process that which your intellect provides you. Whether you're bothered by missing SpongeBob or our Sun eventually going supernova, it's going to be your ability to balance that info with everything else that will determine how easily you can find happiness.
Have you ever met someone with autism?
My mother is a special education teacher. I've met her students.
You're right, autistic people tend to be less functional in society (loud noises or changes to routine cause them to freak out). On the other hand, they tend to be amazingly knowledgeable about a few specific things. They may not be able to carry out a conversation, but they could write research papers on dinosaurs or whatever their personal interest is (and this is in elementary school).
Autistic people have an extremely strong and narrow focus and tend to think logically. This gives them an advantage in scientific fields.
"Geekiness" does have certain common characteristics with autism (especially milder forms like aspergers). Autistic people have trouble recognizing social cues, causing them trouble socializing normally. They also can adhere to either excessive cleanliness, or its opposite.
They also show a certain social apathy, not showing appropriate interests in other people.
Asperger is in fact light enough for people who have it to lead a normal, achieveing life. I, for one, have been fairly able to live an acheiving life up to now (I would not call it normal or fullfilling, and I would also not say that asperger is not a problem, but with enough experience and some intellegence it can be worked around).
My new blog
I think one could make a connection in a sense. How many people do you know who are simultaneously piano, cello, and trumpet virtuosos? None?
Learning anything requires time. Geeks are notorious for spending their time doing "geeky" things which are also notable because they generally fail to cultivate social skills (but do cultivate a different skillset, just like the music analogy).
While I don't necessarily disagree (there are activities which seem to do nothing (mindlessly playing solitaire for hours on end) as well as activities that can cultivate both facilties), I think you're being overly simplistic.
But lastly, I disagree with your cynical note at the end. All industry devotes much of its energy to profit for the same reason we devote much of our existance to eating and drinking. Children who have music lessons, for example, are shown to do better on standardized tests. Just because the music teachers may want to make a profit so they can maybe own a house or something silly, doesn't mean their efforts are insincere or useless.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
That said, a quick "summary" of our beliefs involve a pre-earth life, mortality (this life) and a post-mortal life as a resurrected being. The goal is to become as a God, much like our Father in Heaven (what some consider God - not Jesus).
How does one become a God? What kind of training would that necessitate? Think about that. How would you train a potential God?
Our belief is that we're put here on earth, having had our minds "wiped" (in a sense) to avoid any remembrance of a pre-earth life (whatever status, knowledge, associations, etc. we may have had).
So you're put in an environment where everyone is given a set of challenges that might very well be unique for them in order to progress in some way that's necessary for them or for someone around them .
I'm not speaking (er, typing) fatalistically. But let's assume that is a purpose of some of the challenges we face? If you're one to believe that we're subservient to God (as His children), who would we be to decide that we should deny ourselves the opportunities that come with such challenges? And what do we deny ourselves by sorting out and killing those who might be susceptible to our notion of imperfection (however we reach that conclusion)?
I have a child with what appears to be some form of aspbergers, but having taken her to the UC Davis Mind Institute (mentioned in the article), they have concluded that she's not...exactly. So they've (for now) classified her with a multi-dimensional disorder. With a high probability of schizophrenia in the future. We are to follow up later.
I'm an ex-Intel employee (computer geek since age 12 when TRS-80's first came out), having married a nurse. My father is a computer nerd, with my mother just plain being crazy. :-) My wife's father was a school teacher, but focused tightly on statistics on the side, with her mother not having any "risk factors". My wife comes from a family of 6 kids, of which, HALF have 1 or more autism/aspberger's symptoms (one person having all 3 kids with autism, with an ex-Navy Seal as the father, but who's also a computer geek)
As I read the wired article, I couldn't help but think that a lot of my difficulties in social situations had to do with the anatomical dissections of everyday interactions. By that I mean that as I talked with people, and they mentioned their having gone to the bathroom a few minutes back, I'd think through all the steps/body parts necessary for such a function. Discussion of sex by others in a locker room was a nightmare! :-) The handling of diapers of my own kids was very difficult. Other people eating sloppily with too much food in their mouth had it's own chapter. As did people farting or belching.
I also am very talented in understanding new things such as auto mechanics, computer programming, air conditioning, etc. as it pertains to how things work in the physics/mechanical realm, but for some reason I cannot make sense of Chemistry. I also cannot stand the sight of blood/organs/bodily disfunction. But interestingly enough, I can understand the extent of medical problems better than my wife (a nurse).
I can't help but imagine that the person who cracks this genetic/environmental code will themselves be a victim of autism/asperger's syndrome. How much worse off as a race (or potential God's) would we be if we didn't understand the many facets of being a human? If we were to have killed off those who continue to unravel the mysteries of this world around us?
I tend to believe that it's how we approach the "problems" that really show who we are inside. There are some people I know who have to endure some very trying children due to one severe disability or another. They grow in ways I can only imagine. Me, I find myself stuck so
Happy, you mean as children. Till they get to be in their 20s when they tend to get o frustrated that they are often suicidal. They rarely outlive their parents and once they figure out they are different and everyone else has it much easier, its a living hell for them for the rest of their very short lives. If they are brought up in a religious house, they end up with the guilt of "why does God hate me?" or "What did I do to be so hated by God". All this because two people are being is being selfish about their own genes. I hope thats a genetic trait because its not going to be passed very far along.
Ok, lets take a look at some terribly heinous crimes:
Sex out of wedlock.
Paying for sex out of wedlock.
Sex out of wedlock with someone of the same gender.
Marrying someone of the same gender.
Polygamy/Polyandry.
Purchasing a "mail order bride".
Teaching students that sex using a condom can protect against some STDs and help prevent unwanted children.
Aborting a fetus that would normally survive but be crippled mentally or physically.
Aborting a fetus that would not normally survive, but would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the attempt at life, just in case it does survive.
Allowing a woman to die after 15 years in a coma on life support.
Refusing to allow the government to pass a law forcing said woman to not die.
Aborting an unwanted fetus.
Copying a song onto tape from the radio.
Copying a song onto mp3 from a cd.
Copying a song onto mp3 over the internet.
Teaching someone else how to copy a song from a cd with copy protection.
Gambling.
All of these and more are "Evil" acts that someone or another thinks is "wrong", and yet those feelings are not universally held, and/or have changed over time. As the grandparent said, some things that are evil and unspeakable to me aren't to others, and vice-versa. Common grounds are few and far between. I wonder what cannibalistic tribes think of other people's revulsion of killing and eating humans.
Vagary's statement that "only creatures capable of evil are capable of good" is itself not logically sound. If someone was born who never once thought of killing anyone, would they be incapable of learning CPR and saving a life? Maybe my CPR training in Boy Scouts was what led me to work in tech support. Driven to evil thoughts by my capability to do good?
Perhaps on a species-wide scale if humans became incapable of breaking laws, starting wars, or hurting one another, there would no longer be "heroics" or other large scale displays of "good" that everyone could point to, but even if we did somehow create a beautiful utopia, people would still be born into the world, cared for as children, and raised into this society... would this not be "good"?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
This is also wrong in some parts. As a former special education teacher and currently a social worker working with autistic children, I can tell you that most autistic children do not show the "genius" for one or two things. That is a stereotype. What most people are referring to when they speak of this is neither Asperger's or autism, but a related disorder on the PDD spectrum referred to as savant syndrome.
Your description of the difficulties in social functioning for PDD spectrum children was spot on.
-Jim
"genius doesn't matter if it can't be communicated"
it sure does...wtf are you smoking? we owe most of the modern world - computers, CD players, automotive engineering, airplane turbines, antibiotics etc. etc. to genius that has no hope of being communicated to the growing scientifically illiterate masses
but your post reflects a certain meme I'm beginning to see in the world now...a fear of true intelligence and a belief that only what can be "marketed" is even "real" since the "market" is the dominant socio-political organization. I think Spielberg dramatised a possible outcome of this kind of "anti-thinking" with the memorable Amazing Stories episode where all children were tested for intelligence and the brightest killed, this in a supposed negative utopia where technological advances that would come from such children are seen as dangerous. But that's all hogwash, of course it's actually the people with your purported "social intelligence" who are dangerous, like GW and his risible fake Texas accent. Social intelligence - yes...it appeals to middle American dumbf--ks...does he have a drop of real intelligence? Probably not.
Doesn't follow at all. Being a free person does not imply being a creative person.
And there have been plenty of creative slaves and subjects of authoritarianism. It was after all Nazis engineers who made rockets practical, and the authoritarian Soviet Union that put the first artificial satellite and first humans into orbit. Jazz and blues music was created by a people oppressed. Going way back, IIRC the alphabet that we use can be traced back to an innovation by slaves in Egypt, to use simple symbols derived from hieroglyphs to represent sounds.
Nor can evem the most creative people exceed the carrying capacity of the environment. Give a group of craftmen 100 pounds of iron to make widgets, give them as much time as you like to develop efficent methods, and you will never get 200 pounds of iron tools out of them.
Like many modern economists, Julian Simon operated under a set of axioms radically at odds with the physical reality in which we find ourselves. We live on a finite planet; following economic theory that disregards that basic fact, we have already passed the point where the human population exceeds the sustainable carrying capacity of the biosphere.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Actually, all of those inventions are extremely important. Environmental arguments aside, those are critical.
/.?
You want impact? Try CPUs. The impact from the creation of a single P4 is probably quite a bit greater than all of the rest. Low yield batches with extremely hazardous chemicals just so we can post on
-WS
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
He's financial doing well, but is he happy?
There are rich people who are so unhappy they even kill themselves.
Getting back to Billyboy, if he was truly happy, would he be so ruthless even though he is already so rich.
Heck, I'd be happy with only $5 billion.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Ie, you're more interested in creating a child to carry your genetics than in creating a life to love, hold, and care for.
What is the point of having children, and really anything else we do here if it is not to make every effort to maximize our long-term survival and prosperity as a species?
Perhaps I should ask why you care so much about your specific genetic line. Unless you can prove that your genetic line will be advantageous in the future (which you can't)
Nobody's saying anyone can prove a genetic line will be advantageous in the future. What I'm saying is that there are certain genetic anomalies which nobody could reasonbly argue are viable or would be good for us evolutionarily.
I can't begin to see why you'd decide to go off and end a life to maximize the chances of creating the single life you're able to financially insure.
Again, you're drawing the wrong conclusion from my argument. I'm saying there is reasonable evidence to conclude that this electrochemical computational phenomenon we call "life" does not develop beyond that of a very rudimentary organism until around halfway in the pregnancy, and there is some evidence which shows that giving people the option to do so greatly improves the peace and and quality of life in a community, which in turn increases long-term survivability and prosperity of the species.
So, if you could only find out your child had Down's syndrome at 10 years, would you be okay with people killing their children then? Would you require a doctor's note? What if it wasn't until 19 years that symptoms showed up?
Of course not! But are you seriously not able to distinguish between leaving a baby to the wolves and destroying what is clearly a non-sentient mass of tissue? It's significantly less sentient than that animal you just ate was. I don't suppose you're a vegan?
Life is life. It's a sad state of affairs when people place their own selfish wants over the responsibility that goes with it, just like it's a sad state of affairs that people would inhibit risk reduction (ie, go out of their way to block contraceptive use). It's one thing to block the contract of sperm and egg (analogous to not having sex at all). It's quite another to, even with contraceptives, having egg and sperm unite, then deciding you're not able to take the responsibility. If people were taught early on... blah, blah...
It's not just for one's own selfish wants, but the benefit to society and the future of the species. Do the benefits of a society without unwanted children outweigh giving you the satisfaction of making people suffer "the consequences of their actions"? So instead you'd have society suffer for years the consequences of irrational inaction?
No matter how much sex education you give people, some will still make mistakes or have accidents. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that unwanted and unprepared pregnancies often result in poverty, psychological problems, and crime. There is also plenty of evidence that a large part of the pregnancy the fetus could hardly be called a sentient being, but merely a chemical reaction which will result in one. Why not stop the problem before it has started?