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'."
Would you have allowed Bill Gates to be born?
Advances in prenatal genetic testing pose tough questions
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
Bill Gates is definitely an assburger.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
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.
Parents will tend to choose the jocks with five year lifetime careers who contribute nothing to humanity instead, dooming us to a world of know-nothings and really really boring parties - I've been at a bunch of them, and let me tell you, they'll bore the paints off you ...
...
Genetic testing will probably cause more harm than good - we need to have it screened for medical uses only, such things as fatal diseases, not What's Hot This Week
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Many people believe that "God" alone should determine how many and what sort of babies we have, but I really think that is stupid. Serious matters like this should be decided by the State.
It's a 3.4 Ghz. Mobility Radeon 9800. GB of DDR400. Only 8,985 production models. Dad let's me surf porn in the basement. But not on Monday, definitely not on Monday.
So, science is so good now that we can predict with 100% accuracy if someone will be able to contribute OR OR OR live a happy life?
I know so many people with IQ's over 110, well educated, well employed, good citizens who are miserable. I also know one girl who is in a wheel chair, she has some genetic disorder, and she lights up a room with her smiles and laughs.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Serious matters like this should be decided by the individual.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"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."
The parents I've meet with Downs and autistc children have commented on how rewarding it is. "Hearbreaking grind" is very judgemental and not necessarily true (although for some it might be).
Anyway, what legal systems consider termination to be a reasonable choice? Do they actually spell out different reasons for abortion?
Interesting, that those mentioned (Gates, Einstein, Newton), are also classic INTJ personalities...
;)
http://www.typelogic.com/intj.html
I am too, btw, so I can count myself among some good company... but then am I likely to have Asperger's as well?
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
Stop their being born? If the "normals" can't handle us, just send us to boarding school. Why waste our time thinking down to their level, anyway?
--
make install -not war
I've been at a bunch of them, and let me tell you, they'll bore the paints off you ...
In my experience, any party that ends up with me not wearing pants is generally a good one.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Several scientific papers have pointed out one of the highest collective regions for Asperger's syndrome (in the US) is a certain place in San Francisco....
coincidence?
What drives me crazy is all the programmers I've known who make the connection "I'm socially awkward and like computers, so I am a misunderstood genius and I'm better than everybody!"
And this goes hand in hand with every kid who can stack blocks by the age of 3 being 'gifted'. Of course, there's a whole industry dedicated to 'helping' (read: profiting off of) parents who believe their child is gifted.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
gates has only a single gene in his entire body that i envy - the one that gave him THIS. O_o
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Ah, a minority person who doesn't have any social skills. Have you thought that rather than working on your superior attitude that perhaps it is you with the problem and that it is you who was boring everybody else?
tending his private logs of baseball statistics
That is perfectly normal for a four year old, so back off!
/gonna get my gumdrops yet, I tell you
The Knack!
More
IIRC, we had here on /. an article about Bram Cohen (bittorrent author) having Asperger's syndrome.
Guess the Asperger has a light and a dark side, too...
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.
Asking the question in terms of "Gates, alive or dead?" in this forum, is engaging in a variant of Reductio Ad Hitlerum.
Clearly most of us would be happy if he didn't exist, right?
Gates eats food. I guess food is bad. He lives in a house. I guess houses (at least, houses that look like giant crappy convention center/shopping malls) are bad too.
Using Gates as the lead-in to an article is likely to lead to a flamefest.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
He's more intelligent than most people on /., and that is saying quite a bit. He is a brilliant strategist and businessman. You don't get to be the richest man in the world with the world's largest and most powerful software manufacturer by being average.
He didn't show any typical traits such as repetetive behaviour or social oddities. He was a loner, but that doesn't necessarily make him autistic.
My understanding is that autism is caused by a wide variety of factors. It's unlikely a single gene will be discovered that causes it. Even then, there's a good chance that a trigger of some sort to cause it to occur (virus, environmental factor). Finally, even if a child becomes autistic, there's a range of autism from mild to severe.
Deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is a complicated thing, made even more difficult when the best a genetic councilor can say that there's a chance that this gene may lead to problems, perhaps severe and perhaps not.
Still, I feel that giving more information to parents is a good thing, even if it causes a fair amount of worries in the long run.
When my wife was pregnant with our second child, her bloodwork suggested that there was a one in twenty chance that she had Down's Syndrome. Fortunately it turned out fine and we got a karyotype of her chromosomes as a souvenir.
I just don't think that as a society we have the moral maturity or sophistication to be even thinking about this sort of stuff. We have done a really poor job of doing ethical/moral analysis of past technologies, and I don't see any reason to think that we'll do a good job in the near future. That said, I don't think we should totally stop innovating and trying to come up with new stuff. I just think that we've got some pretty basic no-dispute moral problems (e.g. extreme poverty) that we should be worrying about... both as a society and as a scientific/technological community. People who have children who have autism obviously have a burden to bear in taking care of them... but wouldn't it be way more productive, and way more obviously moral to spend time addressing these huge social, environmental problems instead of (relatively) tiny little problems? I don't agree with everything in it, but a good book about some of this stuff is "In the Absence of the Sacred" by Jerry Mander. Check it out... and don't be afraid of moral questions.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Gates is widely thought to have Asperger's syndrome
Why? He doesn't seem that antisocial to me. He seems to be able to understand things outside the literal. He seems to be able to excel in more than one specific area (programming *and* business)...
He came from exceptionally intelligent and wealthy stock. Just because he was able to get into computers and ride the first "boom" means that he could only do so because of some syndrome?
Most people with AS are of *normal* intelligence but they have extrememly large vocabularies and excel in specific areas.
While I am certainly not a doctor of any sort I would prefer such comments at least quantified with some shred of evidence.
consider termination to be a reasonable choice where the fetus carries other genetic disorders such as Downs Syndrome
That makes me very, very sad. My wife and I are expecting our first child, a girl, to be born in the next 4 weeks. There is a strong chance she will be born with Downs Syndrome.
Our doctors wanted to advise us about our "options". They wanted to run all kinds of tests, including amniocentesis and genetic testing, in order to be sure one way or another,so we could make an "informed" decision.
So, so sad. I just can't imagine anyone wanting to do such a thing - especially since we've seen her in full motion 3D video on two seperate occasions - smiling when we stroke her head, sucking her thumb, yawning when we wake her up after a nap - things that any baby would do.
My point of view -- not a political statement really. It's just heartbreaking. I fear for any culture that so highly values convenience, pride, and "perfectness" that it would cast aside those who we should be called to love and care for even more than the "perfect" little baby everyone hopes and prays for. And for the worst shame of all, doctors who repeatedly promote termination of even marginally defective babies and are constantly harping about options -alternatives! - to life.
I am under no illusions about how painful, difficult, and disappointing raising my daughter maybe if she turns out to have Downs, but believe me, I will love her and treat her as my daughter till I draw my last breath.
I really hope our culture doesn't continue to devolve into one that values only designer, perfect, genetically correct babies.
...calling geekiness some kind of horrible disease? It'll be like those idiots who (still?) seem to believe that homosexuality is a disease. I already get beat up enough for being a geek. What happens when people start thinking it's a disease?
On the plus side, in my experience, most geeks tend to be fairly intelligent, (autism aside), and I wouldn't mind knowing ahead of time if my kid will grow up to be smarter than his dad.
nazi germany? doesn't sound too far fetched that the next step would be only to allow blonde hair, blue eyed kids live
if you won't want the 'hearbreaking grind' raising an autistic child, don't have unprotected sex. really, it's that simple
vodka, straight up, thank you!
social intelligence is far more important than iq, and doesn't get the press it deserves.
an average iq kid who has a high social intelligence will go on to make $40 million, and the high iq, low social intelligence asperger type we're talking about here will wind up working for him for $30K/ year.
if the point of this slashdot story is to bring attention to the preciousness of autism/ asperger's and its role in high iq people, then i respond with a big "so what".
genius doesn't matter if it can't be communicated.
a mediocre idea well-communicated is worth 10,000x more than a genius level idea that stays locked up in someone's skull.
so enough of the cult of asperger's. it's overrated. social intelligence is the real deal.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Mr. Spock: "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations."
No Diversity = No Adaptability = Extinction
Probably well deserved. Pain is the anvil on which life is forged. Accept it, or find an alternative.
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
"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.
Just want to note -- I have a lot of experience with autism and specifically Asperger's. And before it gets too involved, I want to mention this:
The argument "in doing this, you might stop the next genius from existing", whether applied to medication or abortion, is not simply the last word. It is something to take into consideration.
The parents who have to raise the child are the ones making these decisions. It's true, "he just might be the next Einstein", but it's much more likely that his parents will go through their lives not being able to speak to him, having him attack you for no reason, and not being able to see him ever live on his own.
Asperger's, a mild variety of autism, is a mixed bag. It breaks my heart to see my cousin's family torn apart by their son's inability to control himself, and he's relatively high-functioning. A test for autism would be a tremendous boon for parents facing the prospect of raising a child who will be forever locked away from them, and they from him. High-minded ideals about future genuises are not what they want to hear.
Summary: Serious autism is terrible. Only a small fraction of autistic children are able to lead productive lives. Borderline cases like [famous person here] are extremely high-functioning, if in the spectrum at all, and probably wouldn't fall under any test in the near future.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
Are there any [fatal] diseases in which the same gene in other people are not susceptible to that disease?
Those (African Americans) who have the sickle cell gene do not get malaria. And those of us who aren't African American are not prone to sickle cell but are more than capable of dying from malaria.
I think there are similar situations for CF (Cystic Fibrosis) as well as others I can't remember...
I agree.
Next, genetic testing before an insurance company will sell you health insurance.
Science is not perfect, it never was. I remember 20 years ago the HUGE butter scare. Scientific test after test came out saying butter caused heart attacks, and to switch to margerin. A few years ago, studies came out saying that margerin is unhealthy, and butter is better? If people listen to science or their studies, they will be eatting eggs one year, avoiding them like the plauge the next year, and then drinking them raw the next.
And like the above example, it was the margerin industry that funded those early scientific studies. They wanted to increase their sales, so they labled butter unhealthy.
Now extend this one step further. Someone HATES jews, there are tons of people out there who are racist. They decide that certian genes, only found in the jewish population, lead to certain disorders. They then use this as an excuse for terminating these pregnecies.
Next... "We think your baby has an abnormally high chance for sickle cell anemia, we reccomend termenating your pregnancy".
Meanwhile... "Yes Mr. Forbes, we agree, if we lighten the shade of your babys hair, it will bring out his eyes, and we'll make sure to add the genes which increase muscle mass, and the genes that increase IQ".
Now, which one will be the more ethical and better human being? That is something science is incapable of prediciting.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
The malady every geek wants to have.
Syphilis?
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Dont confuse business acumen with intelligence. What the parent is saying is that Bill Gates may be a shrewd and remarkably successful businessman, but that does not mean he is a genius. They're 2 very different things.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Seems to be a north american thing where having money is tied to being smart.
I once had a conversation with someone who claimed John Travolta was super intelligent.
I asked why. The response was, that he was rich and famous and could fly his own plane.
The mind boggles.
Because that's what you are if you think there's going to be a test for geekiness. While Asperger's syndrome is a circumscribed and very possibly monogenic entity, what we currently group under "autism spectrum" definitely is not. Geekiness, defined as possibly socially awkward or not interested in acquiring social skills because there are better things to do such as writing papers on General Relativity is not a single gene thing. It's polygenic and I seriously doubt whether, even if we find the genetic variations that go into building smart brains, there will ever be a test that determines whether someone will be smart. At most we'll be able to test for potential, and that's something else entirely. Oh, and Bill will not have Asperger syndrome. People with that disease are generally mentally retarded or have one hypertrophied talent (idiots savants). And Bill, for all his merits, is not retarded.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
He bought DOS and seems to have stolen most of the best parts of Windows. The man didn't see the potential in the internet, was late to the game on search engines and music downloading. By what standard is he put in the class of these other great visionaries? His success is largely due to shady business practices, other people's work and a fair amount of luck. I personally hold the word genius to a higher standard.
Whatever. We can't deal with the current social issues, let alone this can of worms.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Einstein, Mozart, Ghandi would have been more appropriate to make me think twice.
Perfect SAT scores, and high programming productivity in the early days. Sure, some of the employees were probably higher in raw intelligence, but I've never heard even the unhappiest ex-employees call Bill Gates stupid.
A result of technology is that people will do something simply because they can. It unleashes the Promethean instinct in us.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I,
Am a decently successful human being, I run my own business, have held numerous significant jobs, have an advanced college degree.
But, I was born with a small level of Cerebral Palsy.
Just enough to make me limp and trip occasionally.
And other than constantly overhearing 4 year olds asking their parents why does that man walk that way in public I am just as "normal" as the next guy. Ok, normal might be too nice:-) But I'm trying.
When I entered pre-school I was automatically placed in the "special education" (that's what it was called then) class. Not one question was asked of my parents as to my cognitive abilities, etc. My Dad was livid to say the least.
But, what if I had been diagnosed in the womb with my CP would I even exist? Would a doctor have "convinced" my parents to abort?
The kind of testing described should be outlawed as far as I'm concerned.
We have already seen what happened in China, I believe it was, or was it India, when people started getting ultrasounds to determine if they were having a girl or a boy, then aborting the girl fetuses.
It's just a place society shouldn't go, at all.
---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points.
I agree.
When we were expecting our first child we simply chose not to have those tests done.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
There's always a catch whenever you're able to get more information about a possible big decision. Driving a car around is easy. Learning about all the environmental consequences of doing so makes getting behind the wheel a more difficult choice.
The catch is that people have to make decisions. They can choose not to have all the information, which makes things simpler but more likely to be the "wrong" decision.
I err on the side of giving as much information as possible to people, hoping that they'll take the time to think things through and make the best choice. Naive, probably, but that's just me.
Gattaca! Gattaca! Gattaca!
Yes, it's a legend. As in, "any wonderful story coming down from the past, but not verifiable by historical record; a myth; a fable."
That said, it is a "popularly held" belief, yeah.
-In a related note to the parent post: How many Geeks are dyslexic?
I would be very interested in this. Maybe a slashdot poll. Seems like the right usergroup.
No, just amoral, opportunistic, and predatory.
He's not a freakin' genius, folks. I believe the last piece of decent technical work he personally did was Microsoft Basic (Not VB, not QBasic. Microsoft basic for 8080/Z80, back in the "press play on the casette deck" days). Yes, he's quite smart. Probably quite a lot smarter than I am. He has also managed to concentrate on making Microsoft the juggernaut it is, very often by undertaking and encouraging his employees to undertake actions of questionable legality, morality, or fairness, all in the name of increasing marked penetration and edging out competition.
So, I guess it's somewhat true. You don't get to be a convicted predatory monopolist by being average.
Were there ever any highly regarded scientists that also possessed above average social skills? Like picking up girls, telling jokes, that kind of thing.
Everyone knows, Autistic kids ROCK!
DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
Yeah so I most certainly remember reading this article FOUR YEARS AGO. Thanks for the new news!
Pretty soon you would have a lot of good-looking, athletic types banging sticks on rocks and wearing ill-fitting loincloths, scratching their lice-ridden scalps.
Or, something bad could happen.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Notice that this is dealing with a possible future test. My mother has a lot of experience and is quite well-read in the field of Autism, and it is not clear at all what the contributing factors to autism are. As is often the case, this is a case of nature v. nurture with evidence on both sides. So it is likely that any test for an "autism gene" will be highly controversial and disputed. Therefore it is not wise to abort a child based on any "autism test."
Well, I've never seen it, but from the blurbs I've heard it seems you may be thinking of GATTACA.
Le français vous intéresse?
Now all we need to do is see if there is a particular gene common to people who want to be ultra-selective when it comes to picking the genetic makeup of their children, and we can just weed these people out before they are born?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
...of having Asperger's, but frankly I just don't get it. Sure, I have had the typical social problems that most "geeks" have had, but I'm not a geek, I'm an artist. I am also pretty singly obsessed with only a few non-social activities (computers and composing music). But I also happen to like sex a whole lot. So, to all those who think I lack social skills, get a grip. I just like being sarcastic and snarky and I don't like most people. If that gets me classified as having a disorder that needs to be treated, I think I'll go pos[tt]al.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I think women should be able to kill anything that is living inside them and therefore a risk to their health. It doesn't matter when, or why, it is their body to do with as they please for any reason. Well, at least, that's the way it should be.
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
Did the guy look kind of like this?
Right now is the defining moment for geeks. We are surely overrepresented in the first people to learn about this test. The test is immediately presented as a way to prevent our kind from existing. Some of us are reacting protectively of these potential newbies possibility of existence, looking forward to more geeks in the community, strengthening it. Others are threatened, viewing the potential geeks as competition, hoping the test will weed out new geeks. Now is the time for geeks to come together, or humanity will become ever more mind-numbingly "normal", plagued by geeks too antisocial to associate with their own kind. The most antisocial geeks are nerds - we can't cede the future to them.
When geek genes are criminalized, only criminals will be geeks - and the nerds who fear them.
--
make install -not war
What to do? Give prospective parents all available information, and let them choose their own paths. What else?
Lots of them will still take their chances ...no matter how slim the upside. (After all, people still smoke...)
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
I've long thought that I was an undiagnosed Asperger's case, though a moderate one. I think we all have to realize that there is a spectrum behind all this, towards one end is Einstein and Newton, towards the other is Jay Leno and Shakespeare.
I feel sure there's an unnamed complement to Aspergers, which gives extrodinary social grace, but an utter lack of technical skill. Just think back to high school...
And before this discussion gets too paranoid, we should always remember that there will forever be lots of people who can't afford or for moral reasons won't use in utero testing, genetic manipulation, etc. That will be the nice big genetic stew from which to brew genius.
In the end though, this really is a discussion about stability/safety vs. evolution/exploration. IMO, genius thrives on the borders of sanity, poverty and strife, but those are all things any moral person would wipe away from the world if they could.
The meek shall inherit the earth, in 3 by 6 plots. - Lazerus Long
Now, now... as the great Maddox has said, jocks also make sure we get our fries piping hot and our pizza delivered in under 30 minutes. So, many jocks do serve a purpose.
and let me tell you, they'll bore the paints off you ...
if you're at parties where it's possible to lose your paints, then you should never, ever, be bored! lol
Einstein: Leave me alone, i'm depressed!
If you read Hemingway or Faulkner or Fitzgerald, they all share one thing in common. No, not alcohol additcion. Well, yes... they are different. But what all genius writes share in common is they all suffered. One of them said "You can't be a really good writer until you have suffered".
The ones who suffer the most, they are exhaustive in looking for anwsers to why. Often they miss the *simple* social things they could do to make girls like them. But instead, they don't comb their hair, forget to use the deoderant, and wonder why they are "so alone". Then they go to the library and read Dostoevsky for meaning. "Yes, I am a bitter old man". Then they turn to Frued. "Yes, I never liked dad". Then they study math and chemistry, thinking they will make the grand daddy of pipe bombs. Then one day, they pull it all together, the literature, the chem, the physics, the biology, and they see something in a very new way. They discover something. Look at Crick and Watson. There are two guys who probably never had a really wet pussy slide down their pole. So what did they do? They studied how protiens folded, and RNA, and eventually DNA. Because of their early life suffering, they changed the world.
And let us not forget the greatest wisdom in the world. When Kirk said "I like my pain. I want my pain. It makes me who I am".
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
...can we terminate those who think the "imperfect" should be terminated? Maybe they can find genes for fundamentalist Republicans and terminate them before they become president of some huge military power or something equally as ridiculous. The fact is that there is no way of telling what kind of life a person who is genetically imperfect will lead. Rainman? Gone. What if they were to be schizophrenic? Say goodbye to John Nash. I think the people who believe this sort of thing is in any way acceptable are far more dangerous to society than any kid with Down's could ever be.
Or at least it was untill they added the essay.
I think the multiple guess part of the test is still scored the same, but I could be mistaken.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Realize that physical fitness and the ability to solve PDEs are not mutually exclusive.
There are those in this world that can manage to have both brains and the ability to compete in sports.
I was voted most athletic in my highschool and still play soccer every week for the last 15 years. Does this somehow lower my IQ? I also managed to ace my way though a math degree, a computer science degree and a finance degree. In my free time I dable in advanced mathematics and physics.
I do suffer from dyslexia so maybe their is something to the geek factor.
Maybe the autistic kids are the normies and the normies the autistic kids but the current normies have a genetic defect which gives them the predisposition to take advantage of others and seek control of individuals. Labels, especialy in the psycological field often just serve to separate and give validation to those making the rules; whether intentional or not, only in time do those labels show up as complete bullshit. Just look how women were treated in the victorian age... or now.
We have learned from history (think Third Reich) and literature (think Brave New World) that genetic engineering is morally and ethically wrong no matter the means. Part of the beauty of humanity is that we have differences, flaws, and idiosyncrasies.
after reading all that... what are we waiting for, let neurotypical enslaving begin. have had enough of the morons running the place already.
HAD
Were there ever any highly regarded scientists that also possessed above average social skills? Like picking up girls, telling jokes, that kind of thing.
How about Richard Feynman?
That is why selecting for traits is a hideous idea. Isn't it a form of genocide?We need those people who are a little unbalanced, but gifted. In the case of Autism, relationships are affected as "geekiness" raises. But as you point out the most outgoing among us aren't the greatest thinkers.
Tony Robbins didn't invent the lightbulb - but he has helped some people lifehack a raise or a new wife or whatever. It takes both sides for homo sapiens to progress. I'm sure we need captians of the football team to build our houses and geeks to design them. The point is that we need a diverse gene pool, we can't exclude what we see as defects.
Where will the space program go if we kill off the geeks?
Where will the sex and reproduction go if we kill off the jocks?
Get your Unix fortune now!
00101010100101010101010101001110 1010101010010101010100101 010101010010101010100100000101 0101011100101011010.
Easiest genetics test there is.
Statesmen serve to better the country and help the people.
Politicians serve to better themselves and help friends.
Like it or not, society *needs* jocks.
1) Who else will punish and ostracize the geeks? If I wasn't ostracized in high-school, I'd never have learned to program, or have done my homework. I'd have been getting stoned, and having sex. Things which rightfully belong to my college years.
2) Who will distract the TV watching, Dorito-stuffing, SUV-driving masses? I mean, we all could be rioting on Pennsylvania Ave right now, fighting for our rights, but, wait, TheBigGame/Sitcom81-g/MovieWithExplosions#2118 is on...
3) Who will die by droves in meaningless wars for us, while we complain on slashdot?
Meh. As far as I see it, when we have designer babies, we'll get lots of super-smart jocks. Very few parents are going to say, "Yeah, I want a throwing-arm, 20/20 vision, and, oh, make him dumb as a brick".
What I'm afraid of, is, no more lefties. ( that's me looking around scared )
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
That's a good point. When the bloodwork came back on my wife's pregnancy, they reported a one in twenty chance for our daughter having Down's Syndrome. Other results might give a different risk (e.g. 1 in 1,000), but they don't report it to people. The reson for this is that the true test is to have an amnio, which has a small chance of producing birth defects.
So, we had the amnio and it all turned out fine. We're one of the few lucky parents to have a picture of their child's chromosomes in the baby book.
(MSNBC is a Microsoft-NBC joint venture.)
are we allowed to kill the people who will be born that can't figure that out?
Some people suggest that anyone with high enough IQ (or whichever measure of intelligence you want to use) is certain to have some form of autism. Again I don't subscribe to this. Lots of people with brilliant minds are neurotipical (non-autistic). Take Kasparov for example, clearly uniquely intelligent, but doesn't seem autistic at all.
But we need both.
That is why selecting for traits is a hideous idea. Isn't it a form of genocide?
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
The whole point is that if genetic testing is used to minimize the genetic variations based on What's Hot Now we'll end up without certain genes and sequences needed to create the next evolutionary adaptations. Having anemic blood seems really bad, unless you live in certain regions of the world where it gives you a survival bonus against certain diseases we still have no cures for.
Likewise with geekiness.
Society will most likely choose the jocks, but as indicated, it's highly probable their genes are less well suited to long-term survival of the species, so that form of selection can be dangerous for our long-term survival.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I wonder what rayman did when Wheel of Fortune was on? ;)
If rayman was that good with math, I wonder why he could not get a job doing something very reptitive that a computer would be too slow doing. I am sure there is a job waiting for him in a research lab. Of course, all research would be shut down for wheel of fortune so he can masturbate as vanna white turns the letters.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I'm sure we need captians of the football team to build our houses and geeks to design them.
As a geek who has built houses - and designed them - I point out that captains of the football team may once have been well-suited for construction jobs 100 years ago, but nowadays tend to be less well-suited than geeks are.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Those (African Americans) who have the sickle cell gene do not get malaria. And those of us who aren't African American are not prone to sickle cell but are more than capable of dying from malaria.
I think you mean who have one copy of the gene don't get malaria. Or in actual practice are less susceptible to dying from it, and less likely to get infected by it, not absolute immunity.
Those who get two copies don't have a very good time, though, so a screen that reduced two copies would be useful, whereas a screen that reduced anyone with any copies would be counter-survival.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It will happen naturally in elementary school playgrounds all across the USA.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
and let me tell you, they'll bore the paints off you ...
if you're at parties where it's possible to lose your paints, then you should never, ever, be bored! lol
Well, yes, I frequently attend such parties. Hence my comments about the boring parties where such things are not likely to be considered.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
He's a great kid. My sister says he's about as hard as two kids, because of his 'special needs' but she also tells me that it's at least twice as rewarding to see the results. He was 2.5 Yrs old when he learned to walk. They REALLY celebrated when he crossed that milestone. It was a big deal because it was the culmination of months of physical therapy, long labors and battles of will with him. Was it worth the work? She says, undoubtedly!
Today he's a sixth-grader working at grade level in all subjects. He can do what other kids do, it simply requires harder work. He's a joy to be around, and he's a very thoughtful and compassionate kid.
I'm quite glad that he was not killed prenatally. I commend you for your choice, and while the road ahead may be difficult, it's a good road to be on.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I suppose its whether or not the parents get a dichotomy (your kid might be normal or have disease X) vs a spectrum (your child only has a slight to no case of disease X). A dichotomy isnt really enough information to base a decision. A spectrum-type diagnosis is infinitely better... being able to determine the serverity is a big deal.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
When I was being evaluated for Asperger's by a specialist, she commented that she's had many patients who were severely autistic at age five, but normal, well-adjusted teenagers. The right environment, and medications when appropriate and effective, can do wonders.
The context was whether people with Asperger's can also improve as they get older. She said there's evidence that the same can happen, albeit at a slower pace. That may not be much consolation when you're 20 and can't understand why your dating life is nonexistent, but there is hope.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
(I am assuming here that Windows as such would not exist today if it were not for Bill Gates.)
Here goes:
So you want a world without MSDOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, XP, with all their admitted faults?
Without those as a benchmark, would KDE be here today?
How about Loadlin?
Go check 'em out if you want to see how they might be related in some way to the products Microsoft has brought out.
We, of the open-source world, would not have the PC's around in such great numbers to install our distros on, if it were not for Windows.
The one thing that Windows does is bring a PC to market that Boots to X, Soundcard Works, everything else works, and is engineered to do just that before the box shows up at the store.
Sure, I get a thrill when a Linux Distro boots to a decent X configuration. I loved Mandrake 8. You could go back and forth till you got it just right.
Windows users don't know what we are talking about there. They just turn the box on, and the GUI appears. With XP, it is fairly fast, too.
Because of the requirements of Windows Longhorn, we have the new dual core processors coming on the scene just this week from Intel and AMD.
Soon, computers with these processors will be available.
Dell already has their Model 9100 with the Dual Core Intel model D, for $100 extra. (they have 3 more, for extra $$)
Would Intel and AMD have spent the money, and brought them to market in a world without Windows?
Didn't Bill Gates say he wanted lots of processing power, memory, and other advanced features for Longhorn? Because of that, we have these new machines available.
We'll all benefit in the long run because Windows is around.
Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
When our little girl was born the doctors fairly broke our hearts with the sad news that test results showed severe brain damage. She's almost 3 now, and on the "you ask way too many questions, girl" side of normal. Had that diagnosis been prenatal, and given to a different set of parents, she might have ended up as medical waste.
And that's enough to make me spitting mad.
Executive summary: don't kill your children. They are more important than you.
Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
I was voted most athletic in my highschool and still play soccer every week for the last 15 years. Does this somehow lower my IQ? I also managed to ace my way though a math degree, a computer science degree and a finance degree. In my free time I dable in advanced mathematics and physics.
Hey, when I went back to my high school reunion it was tons of pictures of me setting records for marathons and other long-distance races. And I'm a geek.
But my point was what people will choose if given free reign without constraints - they'll go for Jennifer Aniston's hair and face, even if that has no evolutionary advantage.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
the type of children would be trend based.
you might have a bunch of blonde haired blue eyed kids, but then some people would buck the trend.
so yes, iy is incredible faar fetched so say only blond haired blue eyed kids can live.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What I'm afraid of, is, no more lefties. ( that's me looking around scared )
And at some point in the future, humanity will come up against something that left-handedness provides a natural advantage for, or at least ambidextrousness.
Probably in space.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Well, kids do better when raised by two parents as opposed to one parent. Could you point me to the research showing that kids raised by two opposite-gender parents do better than kids raised by two same-gender parents? I've never seen it.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
On a person standpoint, in early child hood I:
- took until 8 stop wetting the bed
- took until 9 to learn to tie my shoes
- took until 9 to learn North south east and west
meh
Freaks Geeks and Aspergers Syndrome: A Users Guide to Adolescence -- that book can explain it better than I can.
Georgia
giving a person a chance at life simply because they're human?
Are people really so arrogant that they believe their subjective judgement is infallible? Do they believe that a child with a genetic condition would thank them for being killed in the womb? How could they know if their child would rather live with the condition or die? Why even consider abortion when it is our genetic diversity which contributes to the survival of the species as a whole? Even though people with genetic abnormalities may be considered "defective" by some, it is these abnormalities that keep diversity in the gene pool and ultimately strengthen the race as a whole. To eliminate genetic diversity would almost certainly doom the human race to extinction. And this doesn't even address the moral dimension of the question.
How interesting that people will look at the differences among us and immediately attempt to classify groups with a particular trait as better or worse than those without it. I wonder if it ever occurs to them that such differences contribute to the betterment of society. It is in seeing people overcome inborn difficulties that we witness the great triumph of the human spirit.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
If a Gay gene is found, then you can bet your political votes that Gays around the world will turn Pro-Life in a heart beat. Question is, will the christians except the gay community for the greater cause to preserve life? Second, how will the fiminist movement react being that they are pro-choice yet are also made up of lesbians.
Life is not for the lazy.
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
I, for one, am not wildly enthusiastic about cultures that would leave an infant to die alone in the woods.
Hopefully, we're not yet so politically correct that we have to affirm that cultures that kill infants, or own slaves, or torture animals before death to make them taste better, etc. are just as good as our own.
Me? I was genetically programmed to prefer Duracell over Energizer.
That's because you're a pink, fluffy, mechanical bunny.
The significant difference here isn't between Duracell and Energizer, it's between normal human beings (straight or gay) and toy bunnies (interested in having alkaline batteries shoved in their back orifice so they can hop around repetitively all day).
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Many fatal diseases have survival value in certain circumstances (like sickle cell).
Today's "bad" gene may be the basis for tomorrow's "able to tolerate natural toxins and pollution" gene.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It comforts people to think that the highly successful are suffering under some burden.
Look at the huge number of people who still perpetuate the myth that Einstein was dyslexic. Despite the fact that there isn't one shred of evidence to back it up, sites all over the net trumpet this lie as truth.
I suspect it's the same for Gates and the whole Aspergers thing.
the whole monetary comparison was meant as a matter of example of what i was talking about, not the only game in town.
let's put it another way: what is the difference between george lucas the director of the original star wars and george lucas the hypothetical asperger's victim?
the real george lucas is highly socially intelligent. he communicated his idea well. the hypothetical asperper's george lucas has all of star wars locked in his skull, and no one else ever knows about it, because the asperger's george lucas has no social intelligence to communicate his vision.
so money is not the issue here, but money serves as a quick yardstick of effective communication of ideas that have enormous impact.
the issue is communication.
and, like i said, a bad idea well communicated is more important than a good idea no one ever hears about because the person who had the good idea can't communicate it well.
therefore, social intelligence is more important than iq.
capturing people's attention and getting them to listen to you is underrated, while rarely used mental abilities like spatial and mathematical abstraction get far more press than they deserve as judgments of what an intelligent person is.
i other words, geekiness is overrated.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Now, now... as the great Maddox has said, jocks also make sure we get our fries piping hot and our pizza delivered in under 30 minutes. So, many jocks do serve a purpose.
They also do great jobs washing our cars. But do we want a society filled with a surfeit of jocks, and a few rebel geeks, or one with balance?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Seriously! FUCK ALL YOU PEOPLE!
For future reference, this may not be the best tone to take when attempting to convince others that you're psychologically normal.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I will be flamed for this,
I saw a report on this one several years ago.
Some jew families have realy problems with genetical deseases.
This because they have lived for a long time in very thight families and mariages inside of families were very common. Similar problem with the royals in europe and mormons in south amerika.
There are even tests in Israel that some persons need to undergo (i don't know state or socialy impossed) to even get married.
If a girl gets marked positive, in those tests that are not even 90% accurate, they likely will not find a husband.
The solution is easy, MIX
I do not agree on the gene scanning practice, just wanted to add some info
greets
There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
Other Slashdotters, how about a judgement call here:
Is this a really clever troll? Or just some young geek utterly out-of-touch with society? I can see it either way.
Comment of the year
I remember 20 years ago the HUGE butter scare. Scientific test after test came out saying butter caused heart attacks, and to switch to margerin. A few years ago, studies came out saying that margerin is unhealthy, and butter is better?
The big flaw isn't in science, it's in the reporting of science and people's interpretation of the reporting. Did the actual scientific paper recommend people switch to margarine, or was that the suggestion of the media? The media are trying to sell papers, not provide truth and understanding.
If people listen to science or their studies, they will be eatting eggs one year, avoiding them like the plauge the next year, and then drinking them raw the next.
No, that's what happens when people listen to the media. Mainstream newspapers, magazines and especially TV news simplify all science down to a headline. "Butter causes heart attacks, switch to margarine". Obviously the actual scientific paper isn't that simple, and real scientific conclusions come from multiple studies and consensus by the people in that field.
I'm not saying science always gives us the right answer right away. Of course it doesn't. But the much larger problem is conveying the information that science gives us. The media does an absolutely horrible job of it, and the public at large blindly follows them.
AccountKiller
can the child with asperger's ever excel as much as a "normal" child socially?
a child with asperger's can be intervened with, and brought to a modicum of social success, yes.
but excelling, having high social intelligence, well, the asperger's child is hampered in that department.
my whole point is that geekiness, ie, rarely used mental skills such as spatial and mathematical abstraction that asperger's people excel at, is really not that valuable in real life. while effective communication is.
a bad idea well communicated is way better than a good idea that remains trapped in someone's skull because the person has no skills at capturing people's attention and turning them on to something.
ergo, social intelligence is underrated, while these asperger's class mental abilities get too much press. they aren't really that valuable.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'll play devils advocate here -- there is simply no proof in either direction because the population of children raised by two same-gender parents is simply far too small to draw any significant conclusions (and rule out other variables; ie. are single-gender couples more statistically likely to live in metropolitian areas? are they more likely to be economically better off? etc. not to mention the hundreds of other variables which ARE proven to be linked to raising successful children)
Granted, I do believe that single-gender couples should be allowed to raise children and be accepted into general society. However, right now, I don't think there's enough evidence in either direction.
Unfortunately, what is true is that the child will be subject to bigotry, just like Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics once were. Fortunately, we have mostly transcended these barriers in America, and I have little doubt that we will be able to accept this group into society.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
That was an excellent piece of dry humour.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
A (joke) headline I saw once:
Dyslexia for Cure Found!
I thought they were going to let me vote. It would have been far more interesting to see the results of a poll about "Would you have allowed....?"
I'm looking over the wall, and they're looking at me!
I'd rather they find the gene for "normal" and weed it out.
"I'm sorry, there's nothing unique about that fetus - are you sure you want to bother carrying it to term?"
This is kinda a dumb worry. It asks us to believe that in the future people will start using a genetic test without figuring out what it tests for.
If we identify a gene for autism what we would do is run the tests on a bunch of people like Bill Gates and see if it only identified people with severe disabilities. If it also identified geniuses I doubt many people would make use of the test. The deciscion to termininate a pregnancy is a pretty emotional one as it is and I doubt a test which may mean your kid has autism but may mean he will be an intellectual superstar would encourage people to get abortions.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
you never know what you're gonna get.
If genes do anything at all to behaviour, even just restrict it, then it necessarily follows that will is not absolutely free. Genes certainly could eliminate genocide, but we might want to allow the possibility for genocide because only creatures capable of evil are capable of good; consider jellyfish.
"Individuals with AS can exhibit a variety of characteristics and the disorder can range from mild to severe. Persons with AS show marked deficiencies in social skills, have difficulties with transitions or changes and prefer sameness. They often have obsessive routines and may be preoccupied with a particular subject of interest. They have a great deal of difficulty reading nonverbal cues (body language) and very often the individual with AS has difficulty determining proper body space. Often overly sensitive to sounds, tastes, smells, and sights, the person with AS may prefer soft clothing, certain foods, and be bothered by sounds or lights no one else seems to hear or see. It's important to remember that the person with AS perceives the world very differently. Therefore, many behaviors that seem odd or unusual are due to those neurological differences and not the result of intentional rudeness or bad behavior, and most certainly not the result of "improper parenting".
By definition, those with AS have a normal IQ and many individuals (although not all), exhibit exceptional skill or talent in a specific area. Because of their high degree of functionality and their naiveté, those with AS are often viewed as eccentric or odd and can easily become victims of teasing and bullying. While language development seems, on the surface, normal, individuals with AS often have deficits in pragmatics and prosody. Vocabularies may be extraordinarily rich and some children sound like "little professors." However, persons with AS can be extremely literal and have difficulty using language in a social context. "
This basically describes more than half of the slashDot crowd I think. Partially describes me and a bunch of my geek friends.
see Gattaca again.
When I hear about people wanting to have a hand in Darwinism by selecting how children should be, I can not wonder what will happen to those who are born to specifications.
If you see how people name their children, I shrudder at the thought of suddenly have a babyboom of thousands of Britney Spears girls.
No matter what you think of her now. Now she is unique. If there are thousands, these kids and later people are not even average, they will be below average, because they are not unique.
It will happen as we want to be all alike.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"Well, kids do better when raised by two parents as opposed to one parent."
Do they?! I'd love to see some figures on that. Last I'd heard, that was not the case. Of course, it depends on how you define "do better", but I'd be willing to take crime, substance abuse, life expectancy, likelihood to be the victim of child abuse, and perhaps even divorce rate as indicators.
Of course, perhaps if you look at divorced parents, you'll tend to select for famillies that had problems to start (e.g. there may have been abuse, which is why they split up), and that will skew the odds....
If you can demonstrate that those are higher for single-parent kids, then I'll buy it, but until then my gut tells me that two-parent famillies are more likely to have a father-figure, and most of the above are usually linked to some sort of male influence, aren't they?
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.
And how are you going to do that? The technology is not that complicated. Are you going to prohibit people from owning a PCR machine (which is really just a precisely controlled hotplate)? Or make thermostable polymerase an illicit substance? Pretty soon, anybody will be able to test for any gene sequence they choose.
You say that like it's an either-or choice.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
It appears I'm not alone in thinking this, either. Check the Wikipedia entry under "Criticisms", which references The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain. Several medial professionals I've spoken with have had very strong opinions on this, to the effect that kids who are simply smart and a tad shy are being labeled as 'mildly autistic', when autisim is a much more serious problem. While it's good to point out to someone that they're likely to do better if they improve their social skills, and give them the tools and guidance to do so, it's possibly detrimental to label them as having a mental disorder when they're just at one end of a personality spectrum.
Sorry, had to rant. This stuff is starting to piss me off. People suck. ;-)
Gattaca, for anyone who has yet to see it, was a great example of what this is exactly about, the genetics telling all about people, and not caring about potential or anything of the like.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
Now, now. I never said I was psychologically NORMAL. I just said I was neither autistic nor aspergers. And I pointed out that I find it remarkably irritating that people in our society seem to feel the need to explain away the brilliance of one segment of it via things like Aspergers.
Psychologically, since you went there, I think this sort of thing implies a sort of inferiority complex on the part of the majority of society, which they try to cope with by saying things like "yes, Einstein was a brilliant physicist and one of the most influential scientists of this past century, but I bet he had some form of autism!" (thus making the speaker feel less inferior).
It's the sour grapes thing writ large.
By the way, I have no ill-will towards anyone suffering from autism or aspeger's syndrome. I'm sure it's very difficult for them. However, it is completely inappropriate to assume such a handicap whenever one encounters a particularly wily geek.
Having said all that, yes, perhaps I shouldn't have said "FUCK ALL YOU PEOPLE!" But it's so satisfying! How can I resist?
Try it. Just once. Seriously. You'll smile, I promise.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Nowadays the war has moved a little further from us and and we are bored with life, therefore the solution to our problems is death.
We should know better.
No, let's breed autistic/aspergic people *with* supermodels! That way our children will be both brilliant and beautiful! They can't lose!
Evolving toward geekiness by selecting progressively more geeky genes will allow us to build giant powerful robots to wipe out the jocks and finally let us control the WORLD!!! P:what are we going to do tomorrow night brain? B:I'm going to get rid of YOU!
lead geek: (squeaky voice) Did he just call all geeks autistic?!
second geek: (volitile squeak voice) Yeah! Get him!
geek chorus: Get him! Get him! (Waves Star Wars dolls at offender)
(Offender growls; Geeks run away)
surprisingly enough, this world is not divided between "geeks" and "jocks", and you might as well know that many of the people you have grown to appreciate are far from being geeks (J. R. R. tolkein, for example). and while I see your argument about choosing according to "what's hot this week", I think you are walking on a fine line there. for example, what about choosing to abort because of down syndrom? because of possible bodily problems? where does the line go between "what's hot" and a legitimate reason, and who are we to say so?
My new blog
And how are you going to do that? The technology is not that complicated. Are you going to prohibit people from owning a PCR machine (which is really just a precisely controlled hotplate)? Or make thermostable polymerase an illicit substance? Pretty soon, anybody will be able to test for any gene sequence they choose.
... oh, I don't know, HN51 avian bird flu let's say ... nah, that would never happen, biology adapting to weed out the less diverse and less resistant groups, would it?
...
Choice is resulting in massive skews towards boys in certain cultures, based on genetic testing (at a grosser level) and ultrasound, with anticipated negative impacts on those selfsame cultures.
Again, just because we can all jump in a well or off a bridge onto the rocks below, doesn't make it a good choice or a wise choice.
Darwinian selection should cause those societies which encourage/permit such uses to become extremely fragile and likely to become infected and wiped out thru
Where's the grin button on my keyboard
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Hypothetically could a severely crippled child sue his parents for not doing the test and aborting him, if his life is nothing but misery? Could someone else sue his parents if he's enough of a pain in the ass of society? (eyeing Bill Gates' parents speculatively... ;-)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Okay, you're probably a copy-paste troll, but I'll bite.
Don't you think those gay couples that want to adopt children are a little more serious and monogamous than the "average" gay person?
Also, you neglected to link to the "2003 Dutch study" "mentioned earlier" (ah, that's a definite clue of your copy-paste nature...)
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Every time you eat you're destroying life. We cut down trees and dig up plants as a regular part of our business. Raising crop plants involves killing other plants.
Is there really any reason that a developing individual of Homo sapiens should be given more consideration than the millions of lives snuffed every day?
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.
Except you can't explain away brilliance by calling it Asperger's Syndrome. Asperger's Syndrome is far, far more nuanced than the Slashdot crowd thinks. If you're reading a description of Asperger's Syndrome and you think you might have it, you're still probably just suffering from Medical Student Syndrome.
If you've ever met a person who actually does have Asperger's Syndrome, you'll know what I mean.
I am become death destroyer of worlds.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Who cares WHY someone is gay? If it *IS* indeed their choice, they have a right to that choice.
Bigots want to prove it's a choice so they can begin attacking the character of homosexuals. That would be far easier than attacking their genetics.
This is not true at all. Children actually do better when raised in extended families: families that include the active participation of grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc... living in close proximity. These additional family members take a lot of the burden off of the parents, especially in the early years and provide a wealth of expirience to help said parents deal with problems that come up.
The "mother, father, 2.5 kids and the dog" traditional family is anything but traditional and is the product of post-WWII America. A short-lived Traditional America where white men were in charge, the women stayed at home, children were the property of their parents, those pesky minorities knew their place, those homos stayed in the closet or were beaten to death and everyone was a propper God-fearing Christian. An America that never was.
Gay/Straight matters to those who are concerned about kids's welfare.
How? What does it matter if someone is gay or straight? If they are allowed to live normal lives and are happy then their orientation is of no matter. I do know that the "for the children's sake" is an argument frequently used to stifle ideas offensive to conservatives who consider everything outside their narrow point of view to be evil.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Having been formally diagnosed last year with AS and having lived under its burden for all of my life, I can offer some anecdotes:
I am in the "gifted" category--I believe (this was some time ago) that I scored a 146 on the Stanford-Binet during testing at age 5. I have no idea what that means today, as I've lost all interest. I do remember that a score of 100 represents the 50% percentile. > 115 being the top 16, > 130 the top 2.5%, etc.
I have, and continue to have, occasionally serious problems relating to specific social or emotional situations. I am on the closer side of "normal" in the degree of my affliction, but if you ever see my reaction to an individual who is sobbing uncontrollably you'll understand what a mindfuck a full-blown case of AS must be. I simply don't understand it. I'll get confused, then angry--occasionally violently so. I cannot be in the room when my girlfriend cries, unless it's out of happiness (she takes care to give visual clues).
Not that it's relevant, but I score as an INTJ on the Kiersey Temperament Sorter. I have for 9 years now (having taken it twice a year each year since I was 14). The N means that I try to intuit that which doesn't come readily. I don't know if my brain is trying to compensate for a lack of social grace by extrapolating cues, but it occasionally serves me very well. It's also resulted in the loss of two jobs, the near-expulsion from my university, and more than one lost girlfriend.
Asperger's Syndrome SUCKS, particularly full-on cases. Autistic individuals are unfortunate; Asperger individuals are tragic.
There are MANY studies out there that show that children raised in single parent families are more likely to commit crimes than those raised with both a mother and a father. I'm sure you should be able to find at least one.
Damn straight. I'd go even further and extend the right to men, too. I saw that Alien movie, you know.
That is all.
I think we are born omnivorous .. that's our design (hence the incisors and the molars). We can choose to be vegetarian or have it imposed on us. We don't need to choose to be omnivorous. We simply are until we choose to be something else.
At this point we are by nature omnivores, but our actions are vegetarian. We would then be known as vegetarian.
I think the parallels are clear, and yes I can spot some problems with this analogy too.
I feel this horrible pain down all the diodes down my left side.
Brain the size of a planet....
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
... and while I see your argument about choosing according to "what's hot this week", I think you are walking on a fine line there. for example, what about choosing to abort because of down syndrom? because of possible bodily problems? where does the line go between "what's hot" and a legitimate reason, and who are we to say so?
..."
Well, as I pointed out in another reply, screening out sickle cell anemia genes could result in having an increased chance of infection by, death from, and damage from malarial parasites, and similar impacts for sleeping sickness.
Additionally, we already see the results of permitting - conscious or by inaction - genetic selection on a gross scale by gender as evidenced in many asian and adjacent countries, where the inbalance between boys and girls is starting to have very negative impacts on those societies.
Sometimes, free choice is not the best choice. It's better not to be able to choose certain things - for example, while it might be ok to have screening for genes that indicate DEFINITE early childhood death (or alteration thereof), it is not true that screening out carriers of only one gene for that disease is a good thing, as those genes can be there for a reason - see malaria, etc - and thus permission to eliminate - or lack of enforcement not to eliminate - can have very negative consequences beyond one's ken.
Most societies, due to popularized western media such as films, even now have some selection towards blond hair and blue eyes, but these adaptive mutations were created/selected to permit humans to survive in low-light near-arctic conditions, just as nose structures were.
If people choose narrow noses and few nose hairs, they may have problems surviving the coming glacial impacts on Northern Europe from the gulf stream shift due to global warming, for example. And nose hairs are useful in reducing pollutants, which is an increasing problem in much of the world.
Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it. "Oh Brave New World
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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
... a child with a Mensa level I.Q., who was socially awkward, or one of moderate intelligence who was popular, I'd take the popular option. Let someone else's kid suffer and contribute to the well being of the world with his or her genius. I want mine to be happy.
Darwinian selection should cause those societies which encourage/permit such uses to become extremely fragile and likely to become infected and wiped out thru ... oh, I don't know, HN51 avian bird flu let's say ... nah, that would never happen, biology adapting to weed out the less diverse and less resistant groups, would it?
Considering the extent of cross-mating made possible by modern transportation, combined with medical technology that enables genotypes to survive that probably would have been lethal in many times and places, human populations probably have greater genetic diversity than at any time in human history. A small fraction of the population screening out a handful of alleles is not going to make much of a dent.
only sith lords deal in absolutes
sorry 'bout the mess...
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.
I don't think it matter except to the religious & bigotted.
Damn straight (No pun intended)
A few years ago one of my friends "Came out" to me. She was clearly nervous and concerned about what my reaction would be. I let her finish her "confession" which was carried out with all the hesitancy and fear one would expect from someone confessing to murder.
She finished. I hugged her and said "I'm flattered that you're comfortable enough with me to share something like that."
There was a pause.
"Is this going to be a problem?" she asked.
"About as big a problem as if you'd told me you're not a natural blond."
For some reason she liked this response.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Gattaca.
#define QUESTION ((bb) || !(bb))
It's a statistical thing. But has been shown in many cases, fewer people from a single parent home get a Masters degree, more people convicted of crimes are from single parent home (maybe when you have two parents, you're less likely to get caught:). But you can't turn the argument the other way and make specific statements about an individual from a single parent home. It's just statistical models and has no bearing on an individual.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Kids do better in the traditional nuclear family than in non-traditional setups.
Not only are you incorrect, you've got it mixed up.
Gay couples don't have accidental children and are typically older and better prepared to raise a child. The only study proven effect of being raised by two parents of the same gender is an increased chance of being homophobic.
Gay/Straight matters to those who are concerned about kids's welfare. So, anybody who disagrees with you is a "bigot"? That's what I'm hearing
Either that or you're grossly misinformed. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I have Asperger's Syndrome, and I am offended by your assertion that autism is a horrible affliction. However, you're right that "Asperger's Syndrome" != "Geek". There are many geeks that don't have Asperger's Syndrome, and there are many people with Asperger's Syndrome who are not geeks.
See, now, I never said that those kids do better because of how many parents they have. You're absolutely right, families that have only one parent are more likely to have a lot of other problem - such as low education levels of the parents, low income levels, abuse, etc. (Remember that not all of those families are the products of divorce - ever heard the term baby mama? A lot of inner city kids grow up never having had married parents to begin with.)
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
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
A small fraction of the population screening out a handful of alleles is not going to make much of a dent.
...)
Unless the specific sequences survive only in regions where they aren't evolutionarily positive, and thus will be eliminated at a more rapid pace as everyone goes for the latest designer gene alterations.
Mary: Why does your kid have the recessive gene for survival in mercury-rich environments, Sally?
Sally: Why, do you think I should have it altered with a viral DNA operation before they're born?
Mary: Sure, then they'll be just like everyone else! Besides, after you add the cute button nose and excessive tallness, why how could that not be good?
And thus another useful gene is "weeded out" (most weeds are or have been regarded as food, flowers, or other useful things and are our primary source of medications or possible cures
Doesn't that make you feel oh so good?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If there is a link between fertility and geekiness, should not then the geek inherit the earth? Silicon Valley as the cradle of civilization? When I was born ('63) there was no appreciation of these conditions amongst the general medical community in the UK. And here I am living around route 128 in Massachusetts. This appears to conform to the model. Oh, bollocks.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... so that's one of the strongest counterpoints to the parent statement and it's an ANONYMOUS post?! fucking stand behind your words and log in before you post. your comment was worth reading but now it's going to be largely overlooked by the masses.
Consider the source:
"Autistic Psychopathy in Childhood" by Hans Asperger was published in 1944 in German and was translated into English in 1991 (Asperger, 1944/1991).
Asperger was defining deviance in the context of the Third Reich! So what is "impairment in social interaction" in a context where normal social interaction includes enthusiastic participation in Hitler Youth and running death camps for Jews? And what are "impairments in communication" in a society of Nazis?
It's fascinating and disturbing that Asperger's has become a diagnostic flavor-of-the-month in contempory America. Diagnoses and syndromes - such as the "hysteria" prevalent a century back in Austria - are often linked to certain cultures and periods. What in current American culture could so closely resemble the Third Reich as to account for the re-emergence of this particular syndrome here, now?
Also, another major "symptom" is reticence to make eye contact. A neighbor of mine was a child in occupied Holland. When the Gestapo knocked on the door demanding to search the house, her mother - six feet tall and blonde - stared them down, shouting "I am your damn ideal! How dare you demand to come into my home." It worked, that once. But how many willing to make eye contact during the Reich ended up in the camps?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Would a dyslexic write a sentence like this?
The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
What are the moral consequences of actually terminating a fetus why "may" have some degree of autism? This is almost like selective breeding.
Having a genetic mutation (such as the gene for antibodies to metallothienin) does not necessarily mean automatic autism. One theory suggests that the disorder is caused by a combination of exposure to heavy metals and the body's inability to remove them from the body due to an autoimmune response (the body's immune system attacks the specific class of proteins needed to remove heavy metals from the bloodstream.)
Yeah, I have Asperger syndrome. In 1st thru 5th grade, I was never able to make any sort of social connection with other people. In 6th grade I got the living sh*t beaten out of me for being strange. In 7th grade they diagnosed it, in 8th, 9th, and 10th grade they put me in special program for it. And still now as much as ever (I am in college) coping with it requires a continuous concious effort.
Yet, as much as this thing has f*cked up my life, I still prefer being here a little more than not being here.
There's a lot more educated ways to contribute to the future. Leave the breeding to the suburbanites.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
a. people with aspeger syndrom have problems communicating, but at least they know not to HOLD THE CAPS LOCK ON!
b. I don't think there's a person who doesn't have anything wrong with him/her self.
c. aren't you just a bit too bitter? I mean, there are other things to life besides sports and geekiness, ther's art, there's investigation of society, there's nature.
My new blog
hey, but he's got AssBurger Syndrome. That's a different thing entirely.
Hi!
Bravo! Bravo! I applaud, with all my heart, the attitude you are taking. Bravo!
There are many people who went to the hospital, only to (in a commonly-used analogy) follow the rabbit down the hole and find themselves in Wonderland. And if, in the providence of God, you find yourself joining us in Wonderland, we will greet you with open arms. There are no people on the earth as huggy and snuggly and welcoming as Downs people--and the families of Downs people, well, it just kind of rubs off on us.
But...
Do not assume that you're going to have a baby with Down syndrome. If you don't have a genetic test, don't leap to conclusions. You may have a doctor making all kinds of gloomy statements (in our case the doctors pressured my wife to sign a waiver of liability when she refused amniocentesis at the age of 39)--but the parents in Wonderland have zillions of stories of utterly clueless things done and said by doctors once they suspect Down syndrome. In simple terms, the doctors will only give you the bad news. In all too many circumstances they tend to "pile on"--adding innuendo and outright scare tactics, followed by calm, reassuring advice about how "termination" is a "reasonable choice."
In simple terms, they are letting their fear of the unknown (most doctors have little experience with Down syndrome--obstetricians, more or less by definition, almost certainly have no experience with Down syndrome), and their fear of potential litigation, substitute for sound medical judgment.
Do not believe what you're hearing from the doctor--or, for that matter, from SlashDot....
The doctor pressuring your wife to dispose of your baby girl is giving you the bad news. And only the bad news. The world around you is using words and phrases like "difficult" and "trying" and "scary"--well, guess what? I have three daughters, aged 21, 18, and 13--and those statements are equally true about all of them. What they're not telling you is that Downs kids are genuinely magical. You'll discover facets of Down syndrome for years and years--and you'll discover other Downs parents and learn how much your child and theirs are alike, perhaps even more alike than they are to their siblings. For example: Downs kids have "loose ligaments"--they can bend and stretch in ways that you or I could never hope to. I routinely fuss at my daughter for biting her toenails--when she's cold at night, she crosses her legs Indian-style, then bends forward and puts her face on the pillow. She forms a tight, perfect little ball--if you or I did it we'd spend a month at the chiropractor trying to recover.
They're not perfect...
...but they've loveable little hobbits all the same. And while your neighbors are sweating bullets as their teenagers get drivers licenses and boyfriends, you'll still be thinking up costume ideas for Halloween, and walking through the grocery store holding hands.
I would not hope for a child with Down syndrome. But if, as I wrote above, if you end up in Wonderland, we'll greet you with open arms.
Don't you think it's possible that the higher instance of these (all depression-associated) diseases could be a result of persecution and non-acceptance, rather than purely associated with being gay?
... It's still highly dubious claim that aspergers "exists" as a genetic trait that could even be tested for at all. You have to remember where these diagonosis are coming from - the "science" of Psychiatry, which not that long ago thought autism was the result of bad parenting.
Also to the ones that would want to "abort" a "potentially" autistic child. Just because you have some form of higher functioning "Autism" doesn't make you unsucessful or a loser.
In society who judges what is success or a person worth? Is it purely economic or capitalistic? I mean come on. The technology exists that these higher funcitoning people would hardly be a burden, some money for some food and a place to live if they can't hold down a job is not a serious burden to anyone in modern society, if you think so then thats fucked up. Just because money says it costs this much, before money, guess where the resources came from? From the earth FOR FREE. So just think about the "costs" associated with someone who can live on their own with modern technology and that cost is negligable.
Compare what countries spend to kill each other with people that are allegedly this heavy social burden on society. Too bad they dont have a genetic test to abort people that will believe in lies (religion) or a test that will abort people that believe in war and exploitation of human beings. The world could do without those people entirely IMHO.
The major fallacy in your arguement though is that someone else wouldn't have come up with something similar to windows (or perhaps, better, but had the same effects).
I'm convienced if not Gate's company (remember, he's basically just a ripoff artist himself), someone else's company. Computers are just too useful not to have taken the direct they have.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The labels "Jock" and "Geek" are not mutually exclusive.
Any geek can also be a jock. With training, any human being (baring physical abnormalities) can become very physically fit. Certainly, there are genetic predispositions towards agility and strength that some carry more than others, but a little exercise can put anyone well past average.
The reverse is also true. While there can be no doubt that intellectual capacity is genetically vectored, very few of us maintain the self discipline to reach as high as we could. With a bit of studying and discipline, an average mind can outperform a lazy but well-wired one.
Before we go patting ourselves on the backs for being geeks, we should think carefully about how we got there and wether we are the geeks that have the geek gene. My guess is that a large percentage of geeks are geeks because they got the ugly gene (not the geek gene) and therefore didn't have many other options than to focus on a little box that would accept them.
Sorry guys, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
Some of the smartest geeks I've ever met have also been the most athletic and physically attractive. That is genetics at it's best. But we are not all so lucky.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
Sure, there are some people who don't feel special and so they "try it on", but it doesn't seem like the epidemic people like you always claim it is.
What seems far more common for people who don't feel special is autism bashing. Finding someone to look down on helps insecure people, and _every_ time autism is mentioned on the internet, the same people come out of the woodwork and go on and on about these people that want to be "special snowflakes", when really all they want is for people to not give them a hard time about eye contact.
At first glance it would seem stepping in for nature and modifying or selecting better offspring before/during gestation would seem like a good idea, but look at it this way:
What everyone starts having "perfect" babies? That is, they're all attractive, naturally fit, very intelligent, etc. Eventually the entire human race (or most of it) would consist of genetically very similar people. Then a nice fat plague hits and kills every single one of them because they're all freaking identical.
Woops.
Question everything
It is simply amazing that few on this board have considered that people within the autistic spectrum might actually want to provide input on social eugenics movements.
Autistic Pride Day is an annual event held every June 16th to help promote awareness that much of what people know about autism is derived from limited exposure to media. This years theme, a driven response to the Combatting Autism Act of 2005, is "Acceptance Not Cure".
Not surprisingly, neurotypicals (the word autistics use to describe normal folk, NT's for short) don't seem to have the slightest interest in listening to what autistics have to say. Having yet to identify a cause for autism the race to find a cure, suck mercury out of the body, or use intervention (ABA) techniques is well under way.
Perhaps NT's shouldn't repeat the same mistakes Nazi's and Catholics have in the past by understanding the situation a bit better so they can work with it instead of just forcing everyone to be in the cookie cutter disaster that is this modern world.
for more information I highly suggest you visit: Autistic Freedom Foundation
Of the thousands of 2-variable combinations involving biologically relevant variables, the combination with the highest Pearson correlation with autism (60%) rates was the one I predicted based on my experiences observing children developing autism in Silicon Valley:
Finns Percapita * Immigrants from India Percapita
(Please note that "autism spectrum disorders" is a poorly standardized diagnostic category whose reproducibility may be little better than 60%. Even if one identified the specific pathogenic agent causing autism, to which a specific set of genes were susceptible, and were able to test the entire population, it is quite plausible that present diagnostic standards would be little better than 60% at predicting who would have those factors and who wouldn't.)
Furthermore, both of these demographies, alone have a Pearson correlation of only 42%(+-1%) which is again what one would expect if the conjunction of two variables were required for the etiology of autism.
See this link.
(Oregon and Massachusetts are excluded as data points due to their being the States with the highest and lowest autism percapita rates respectively. Failing to exclude these datapoints creates the impression that the best correlation is with nonWestern immigration to industrial regions, rather than immigration from India per se to regions of Finnish ancestry.)
Adding economic data there was only one combination of variables that exceeded this and it did so by just 1% (r=61%). It is weakly supportive of the "refrigerator mother" hypothesis. It is not strongly supportive due to the fact that while working parents percapita was one of the 2 variables, the other variable was public education expenditure per student which had, by itself, a Pearson correlation of 54% whereas working parents percapita was only 25% -- indicating the vast majority of the variance in autism rates was explained by public education expenditure per student rather than working parents. There are a number of possible explanations for why public education expenditure per student would be correlated with autism percapita, among them the most obvious being simply that a high cost of education is associated with autism spectrum disorders.
See this link.
MMR vaccination rates show virtually zero correspondence with autism rates. When viewed in combinations with other demographic variables, it came in combinations far from the top -- far enough from the top that it is plausible that such correlations are due to chance or due solely to the other variable.
Mercury has also been hypothesized as a factor in autism, however data from the Environmental Protection Agency on percapita water-way mercury pollution by State fails to show a significant correlation with autism.
Seastead this.
Children actually do better when raised in extended families: families that include the active participation of grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc... living in close proximity. These additional family members take a lot of the burden off of the parents, especially in the early years and provide a wealth of expirience to help said parents deal with problems that come up.
;)
Tell me about it. My wife and I have raised our kids with almost no help from parents or relatives, and it takes an enormous toll.
Add to this that the level of trust is so low, that the only acceptable babysitter these days is Grandma (babysitters are either too young and can't be trusted, or too old and would rather work for minimum wage), it adds up to a lot of stress.
Just venting, is all...
I've never met anyone who suffered from either aspergers OR autism. I don't know why; we just didn't seem to have anyone like this in my neighborhood (or in any school I've ever attended, or at any company I've ever worked in).
;)
Now, I hear many reports in the media that there ARE people with aspergers and autism, and I assume these people are dealing with their problems as best they can. But I've never encountered any, and in my opinion, I think the diagnosis is being thrown around willy-nilly, ESPECIALLY on Slashdot, as if it has become stylish. STYLISH, to have a handicap! It's just crazy.
So that's what I'm trying to get at. The media started this whole asperger's thing, and now people are starting to use it to explain away every intelligent person they hear about. And ultimately, I think it's a way of dismissing intelligent people, of de-fanging them. If someone's smart, and Joe Average feels intimidated, he'll say "yeah, but he's got that asperger's thing". Annoying.
Anyway, that's what I was riled up about.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Forgive me if I gave you the impression that I think it's a terrible malady, fate worse than death, etc. That's not what I was trying to get at. Let me explain.
Here's a handicap, although not a severe one, which some people suffer from. And some of their symptoms aren't all that uncommon; some of them, like being withdrawn or standoffish (?) might be relatively common among NON-asperger's people. OK so far?
So, the media gets ahold of it. All of a sudden, all of these armchair shrinks are saying THIS guy must be autistic, or THAT guy must be autistic, when clearly they're not. And all of a sudden, claiming one is asperger's (or claiming that someone ELSE is, more commonly) becomes STYLISH. Look how many people here on Slashdot throw the term around!
First, I think it cheapens the malady. If it's a real thing, and there are people really suffering from it, it's screwed up that all these poseurs are trying to claim it for themselves or throw it around at others.
Second, I think that ultimately it becomes a way to cheapen and "cut down to size" intelligent people that Joe Average finds intimidating. Joe's annoyed that Einstein is smarter than Joe could ever be -- so Joe plays "sour grapes" and claims that Einstein had some handicap, like autism or asperger's (it used to be calling him a womanizer, portraying him as absent-minded, etc).
I'm not trying to slam people with Asperger's -- just the silly schmucks who throw the term around for their own purposes.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Ah, I guess I misinterpreted you. I agree with you pretty much 100% here, but I think Asperger's Syndrome as a self-diagnosis is being thrown around willy-nilly by asocial loser nerds who want to feel special. I'm just concerned about Asperger's Syndrome becoming the next ADHD, in the "that's not a real diagnosis" sense.
It's definitely a real diagnosis, as my lifetime of sensory issues, struggle to fit in with everyone else, and rigorous therapy can attest.
a. Actually, I didn't use the caps lock key. I have unnaturally long pinkies and I held down the "shift" key. And it was only for one little bit of text, so relax -- don't be such a netiquette nazi.
b. Everyone is completely bonkers. I fully understand this. What's that got to do with my righteous indignation at people throwing the term "asperger's" at every smart person they hear about? Whenever someone's smart, the rest of our society starts cooking up ways to "cut him down to size". It's annoying, and I wish people would knock it off. And, hey! If there are people who really suffer from this, aren't people trivializing their problems by bandying the term about? That's not fair either.
c. It's true. I'm very bitter. I hate almost everybody. I think human beings in general are kind of irritating. However, I don't pursue "geekiness" in and of itself. Actually, my thing is physics, math, and farting around with Linux and Java. Although, to be honest, the main reason I got into physics was a strong childhood desire to become a mad scientist and do something that completely annoys/freaks out the entire world.
I always thought it was kind of sad that all the Bond villains lost. They worked so hard to (insert cataclysmic activity here) and that poofter Bond came along and screwed up everything.
The one I really felt sorry for was Jaws. Always getting his butt kicked by a poofty little spy half his size... But at least he got that heidi-looking chick at the end of Moonraker. She was cute.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
No problem -- I hope you do ok as far as your asperger's goes. As I've said, I would never disparage someone with a medical condition like asperger's or autism. :)
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
That you, the reader, are mildly autistic or aspergers... A Techie? Into computers, science, engineering? An Internet Junkie? More comfortable on Forums like this than face to face with other people? Then yeah, you probably have a bit of it in you. Don't take it as an insult. It's just part of your makeup. Heck, wear it with pride.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"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.
Next, genetic testing before an insurance company will sell you health insurance.
This is actually unlawful. A few years ago a company out in the midwest I believe got in trouble for doing genetic testing on employees. It turns out the employees were suing the company saying the work caused permanent damage to to their hands, while the company tried to use genetic testing to say they were predisposed to the condition. Somewhere along the lines the court stepped in and said they can't test their employees like that as it violates their privacy.
There's a great movie you should watch that covers some of these points, it's called Gattaca http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/ . It's a movie about a guy born into a society, where on birth, you're given an expected lifespan and the diseases you will get. He's born into the society right before they start genetically screening-- as would be expected, he wasn't perfect. He spends his life trying to compete in a society where job interviews are based on DNA tests, and all along the way he is constantly being pushed down by people because he was labeled as having bad genes-- especially by his brother, who was born several years after him perfect. Eventually he steals the identity of someone who is perfect and tries to conquer his dream of flying into a space. It's a very interesting and touching movie given the topic, and I would suggest that everyone watch it.
Of course, we can always ask Watson what he thinks about the situation:
"People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3451/
Sorry, your by your argument Bill Gates is the greatest human ever, because he made a fat load of cash. A good idea will find someone who will understand its significance and develop it. A mediocre idea will be just mediocre.
Sure people with high social 'intelligence' are needed but they can't replace people with high intelligence. I can argue the following:
--
Which people have the highest social 'intelligence' (charm?)?
Lawyers. They spend their lives convincing and charming people. I'd like to see a society built purely on lawyers.
--
See how sweeping generalisations screw your argument?
Anyone else thinking of Gattaca?
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
Having autism does not stop you from communicating with fellow slashdotters :)
-Palal
Strong extended families were, and are, most common those societies where
women stayed(stay) at home and homos stayed(stay) in the closet
both in the West in the past the today in Asia (and possibly other places like Africa)
In other words: science won't work because many people are idiots. Then maybe do something to reduce the number of idiots first, and then it'll work just fine?
Its a common practice in certain parts of India to abort females. People want a male child.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
See that movie and know where this will lead to.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
I don't know the answer to that question, but I once got involved in a spat in the letters' page of The Guardian over whether Einstein was _dyslexic_ (something for which there is no evidence whatsoever). I guess that finding dead celebrities with "your" syndrome is a form of self-validation, and I hereby claim that Michelangelo, Darwin, and Martin Luther King all suffered from hayfever.
Wouldn't it be nice if our generation was the one to solve that pesky aging problem. All of a sudden the kids-be-damned among us would be vindicated and the breeders would be the bad guys.
As for your questions. What gas will there be to pump? And I already pump my own gas. Hopefully by the time I need heart surgery we'll have groovy mechanisms for repairing them (or replacing them with bionic/cloned ones). Planes should be automated, as should cars, and they should be so damn cheap to rent that it is economically insane to own.
How we know is more important than what we know.
And as a Dyslexia person myself working as a Network/System Administrator I find all this "P-C" crap with calling "Autism, Down Syndrome, ETC." as "Learning Disabilities" an insult.
Which causes a lot of miss understanding of Dyslexia and how it affects people. And no there is no cure to Dyslexia this crap "I used to have Dyslexia.." is crap they just have a mind case of so called "Learning Disability" an other word I hate,...
Dyslexia people mind are just "Wired/Work" differently which has it's good and bad parts like all thing in life. The problem with Dyslexic people learning is the crap system we have of teaching which is getting people to memorize facts for a crap test, and not care if they understand it or not.
I'll end my rant now... and probably looses all my Karma Points with this post... But I hate people talking/post about crap they knowing about :/
With genetic testing, no more of Bill Gates, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Steve Jobs.....what would the world be?
You will have to buy a lot of rohypnol to outbreed the morons in this world.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.
What about the remaining 2.1% of women who get abortions...?
Sorry, my mind does math even when I try not to. As someone who is actually cursed with Asperger's, I do a lot of math and programming tasks without consciously thinking about it, but in spite of that gift, I can't hold down a job! My condition prevents me from picking up subtle social cues, and it makes everyone I meet in corporate America nervous around me...
Maybe I *should* move to Silicon Valley.
Solomon
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
Of course, aborting only heterosexuals solves the problem in a couple of generations.
Here's a self-administered test for HFA. Please report your results here. The highest score wins the "your royal geekiness" award.. asp
http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/tests/aq_test
poisoning in early childhood vaccinations. I have a friend whose child now about 6 has/had autism and she has traced the onset to vaccinations (imbued with "safe" mercury) her child received in the 1-2 yr old time period. Her child was showing all the classic symptoms. After 4 years of blood cleansing diets and treatments to reduce high levels of mercury her child with some support has been enrolled and is doing well in kindergarten and is only one year behind for his age group. She says he will always suffer some of the effects of his early childhood autism such as restricted diets and other issues that I can't recall the top of my head.
"more people convicted of crimes are from single parent home"
Right, and what I'm saying is I've heard exactly the opposite, so show me the numbers.
"You're absolutely right, families that have only one parent are more likely to have a lot of other problem"
Well, no I didn't say that. What I said was the odds might be skewed by abusive two-parent families that get divorced. Since a) abuse is more often a male phenomenon and b) single parents are more often female, this would taint measurements of single-parent statistics. It's really the two-parent homes that are causing that particular part of the problem, but the statistics will show up on the single-parent side.
If you then use those stats to say that "traditional families" are good, you're wrong, since it was the "traditional family" that caused the problem.
Wouldn't they be just as likely to come out socially inept and stupid?
Just sayin'
SPAM
June 16th is honored as Bloomsday. That is the day that James Joyce's Ulysses is set. A truly exquisite choice of date for calling attention to Autism.
If Bill Gates and Ayn Rand and Isaac Newton and are considered Aspergery, pencil Joyce onto that list as well...
Sure, it may not have been exactly like this, but if history is correct, and not skewed, this is exactly what Adolph Hitler wanted. To weed out anyone who did not fit his "mold". Sure, this may be an extreme, but hey, let's weed out all the dumb people. I'm sorry, but I rely on them to make me look smarter.
That's what I'm thinking. It's all the rage, like attention deficit syndrome.
The GP post was not saying that some racist parents suddenly find out that their kid is jewish by genes (presumably like the mailman;).
The problem is tainted science. There is pseudo-science out there with an agenda. People who don't want to find out whether margarine is better than butter, or how/whether global warming is happening, or whatever. They already have their conclusions (or their sponsors' conclusions) and have to convincingly massage some data, however flawed or non-representative, into supporting those.
And that kind of tainted research has been used as a support for racism already. E.g., the third reich had an army of people working at defining what the perfect aryan should be, and in which ways the others are inferior beings. E.g., there were UK pseudo-scientists in the past who worked hard to "prove" that the irish are inferior, and born that way. E.g., in the USA there was and is plenty of bad science out to "prove" that blacks are born stupid and/or otherwise inferior.
So what happens if such bad science is now disguised as really helping prevent genetic diseases? What if a gene that really doesn't do more than determine the shape of cheekbones or the nose is mis-presented as potentially carrying some major dysfunction?
It could do a lot of damage, in a lot of ways, before being shown to be bad science.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I feel that DNA determines many things about us but whom we become is not one of them. It is ridiculous to presume that DNA ultimately decides if someone will become the next big thinker. Nor should people believe that cloning is a way to find immortality. If two people had the exactly same set of DNA would they be the same person? No, identical twins prove this theory wrong. They are not the exact same person because they have completely different life experiences. If Hitler were to be cloned would he follow in his own footsteps? The potential is there but there is also potential that he could become a great humanitarian if he were raised differently. Everyone has potential to do something great with their lives but not everyone follows it through. The argument of would you have x person not be born is irrelevant. If Bill Gates had never been born then someone else would have made a company that makes operating systems. If Hitler had never come to power then perhaps Stalin would have tried taking over Europe. It might set a different chain of events but we wouldn't know any different.
Of course, perhaps if you look at divorced parents, you'll tend to select for famillies that had problems to start (e.g. there may have been abuse, which is why they split up), and that will skew the odds....
At least, that certainly doesn't sound like you meant *only* abuse, it sounds like you mean problems in a more general sense and were using abuse as one possible example. It is one possible example, but it's not the only example of something you're more likely to find in a single-parent family than a traditional family. (Or, at least, in the child's background, even if the abuse isn't happening anymore.)
As another example, single-parent families are much more likely to live in poverty than traditional families, and children who grow up in poverty are more likely to be in poverty and get in trouble with the law when they grow up.
Again, I'm not saying single-parent families are the cause, I never said that. But they are correlated with these problems. It's very likely that the single-parentness is not the cause, the poverty is the cause. Just like with what you said - single-parent families aren't the cause, they're only correlated. I never, never said that they were the cause of anything.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
There's really no proof yet either way on homosexual couples that have both raised the child from birth.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
In other words, people differ in the amount of damage they suffer when exposted to various diseases -- and some of these differences are heritable.
Seastead this.
How is this any better than Eugenics?!??!?!
Too mad to write sensibly. I'll shut up now.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
This is getting way out of hand. I'm trying to say something simple here and you keep missing it. Let me drop down a level and be more explicit.
When you say, "single-parent families are much more likely to [X]" for any value of X, you may not be saying what you think you are about two-parent families. This is because the overwhelming majority of children are concieved by two parents who are in some sort of romantic or at least ongoing sexual relationship, if not married. When you look at single-parent families you have to break them down into those that are single-parent simply becuase the father and/or mother prefered it that way vs. those that are single-parent because the father or mother (usually father) was abusive.
In the latter case, you can draw no conclusion about the value of two-parent families vs. single-parent families on the basis of the results unless you are ONLY using the data to compare against abusive situations.
So... when we then look at homosexual couples raising children, we have to account for the fact that these are not "non-traditional 2-parent families" because of divorce or abuse, but because of the nature of the family unit. That comparison needs to be done against other non-traditional family units that are created by choice.
And, so in my original posting, I was saying that divorced single parents are probably skewing the odds toward less favorable outcomes that are not consistent with the original comparison.
Does that make more sense?
Let's just say that I don't have any genetic predispositions to early death. (I do, but let's say I don't)
Why should I pay for your unhealthy asses. I want life insurance that is as cheap as possible. So I should be able to go to an insurace company that only sells to low risk people like me.
Most people would object to a penalty for bad genes, but how about a bonus for good genes. (Hint, it's the same thing)
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Gates is widely thought to have Asperger's...
I don't know about you, but I find AssBurgers taste like crap.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
I originally thought I was agreeing with you and you just weren't noticing that fact. Now, I'm not really sure what you're saying at all. Oh well. It was nice trying to communicate with you, but I just don't think this is working out for us. It's not you, it's me.
Maybe next time. :)
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
>> they'll bore the paints off you
They sound like interesting parties to me!
Let me state that if genetic testing were available when my was in utero, I would have wanted to have the test performed. And if my wife were pregnant today, I'd also want it - not so that I could have the chance to terminate the pregnancy, but because we wasted so much time trying to figure out what was wrong with my son.
Autism is soooooo treatable now (for some kids) if you can start early enough. We didn't know what was wrong with my son until he was about 2 years old - and it kills me to think how much better off he could be today if I'd figured out what was going on sooner.
There are good and bad sides to the issues of genetic testing - but this is one where a lot of kids could be a lot better off. Tying it to a hot-button issue like abortion doesn't help make the issue any clearer.
Oh, while I'm posting: geekiness isn't the softer side of Autism. My son doesn't have the sort of social problems that geeks have: can't talk to girls, too embarassed to get up in front of the class, etc. He doesn't notice kids his own age. So fuck off with your "I can feel better about being an outcast cause maybe it's genetic" crap. Us geeks are a separate breed - be proud of who you are.
The way she put it was that we should be asking ourselves two questions: 1. Would we abort if the blood test and subsequent amnio showed positive? 2. If not, would you want to know this type of thing early?
If the answer to the previous two questions is no, then they won't even bother with the blood screening. My wife and I haven't discussed it yet, but we probably won't do the screen, and judging by your outlook, your doctor should have recommended you not do it, either.
At any rate. Congratulations. The best of luck to you. And ditch your lousy, insensitive doc.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
I probably have aspergers. Is there some sort of online diagnostic? Maybe I'm just a geek. The shrink's office was supposed to have called back by now to set up the testing - I will be charged $160,
which is ok, but if the same test is online I'd like to know about it.
I'd like to see your numbers first. Sounds way more interesting than the numbers that everyone else believes.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
With Downs, there are varying degrees of severity. Many people with Downs can lead long and productive (and challenged) lives. My wife and I would not consider aborting a pregnancy where the child was likely to develop Downs. However, if we were carriers for TSD and a PGD revealed that the baby had TSD, we would abort before implantation.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
I mean, think of all the children we never had. How do you think they feel about the pill?
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Sure, she "chooses" not to eat meat. In the same way that you or I "choose" not to drink hemlock. Yeah, you could drink it, but the results would be unacceptable to you.
She never chose to be deathly allergic to meat, and given the lack of social acceptance gay people receive, I doubt anyone would choose of their own free will to be gay, either.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
I don't deny that ADHD exists. I object to it being a badge of honor in (so-called) geek cliques. Ditto Asperger's. As you said, if someone really has it, then it's a serious problem for them. Or being bipolar, "Like, hey, I get in good and bad moods sometimes, so I'm like a genius with manic-depression!"
> butter scare If there's one thing that pisses me off about Slashdot above all others it's the tendency for anecdotes to be passed off as some of evidence of something. Sir, either your memory, your ability to read reasonably detailed scientific texts (by which I mean: at the level of SciAm or a good broadsheet newspaper) is fucked, or you really don't care about your cardio-vascular health.
Enjoy the remaining thirty years of your life...
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Ok,so it's supposed to really be a question asked to stealthily find out someone's attitude/tolerance level towards homosexuals?
I suppose that works on a crude level... But honestly, I'm not even sure I know what "pro-gay" is supposed to mean? I'd argue that only gay people are "pro-gay". Everyone else either tolerates them or they don't.
I strongly believe in everyone's right to be themselves, whatever comes with it. That doesn't mean I'd actively expend my own time and energy in support of a specific "cause" that doesn't apply to me. (EG. I'm fine with my buddy telling me he's gay, and he's still going to be my friend for the same reasons he was my friend before he revealed this additional information to me. But I'm not going to go to the local "gay pride parade" or anything.)
Thank you to sjames for defending the philosophical interpretation, but I actually had a less abstract, experimental conjecture in mind*: you can't remove a human's ability to do evil acts without making them so useless as to be unable to do good acts. If you had a genetic test for evilness, and aborted all the fetii with those genes, you'd end up aborting everything that wouldn't grow into a vegetable.
Now that I think about it more, if this conjecture is true, it is only true for certain types of entities. It doesn't seem unreasonable that you could make a robot that would only give out (sugarfree) candy.
* Using commonly agreed upon examples of "good" and "evil" acts and naive definitions of "good" and "evil", just for conversation's sake.
What, people are just machines now? We can just decide whether they must be allowed to be born or not by looking at things like how hard it would be raise them? These are human beings, they fucking deserve to live. The attitude of you people towards this matter is disturbing.
He is - I've known John since slight before his youngest was born. The whole family is great
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
If it takes an Aspie to be a genius, why not get rid of normal people? If everyone had Asperger's syndrome, then people with Asperger's syndrome wouldn't have social problems. OTOH, most Aspies lead lives that are just as pathetic as normal people's, with only a few Aspies turning out successful, like Gates and Einstein. In that case, why not get rid of everyone? If we still can't create humans right, it's time to consider voluntary extinction as a serious option.
... I would abort him. If I wanted a child, I would want one who's super-smart and good-looking with the potential to be super-rich. Now that's what I call a designer baby! Otherwise, I would rather have no children at all. It's cruel enough to to force someone to live. To force someone to live with imperfections is even more horrific.
"I originally thought I was agreeing with you and you just weren't noticing that fact. Now, I'm not really sure what you're saying at all."
o =0
= 0f =1
Ok, one more time just to see if it helps:
Let's say you have six families, and we have variables m (# of moms), d (# of dads), and o (outcome, 1=good, 0=bad):
m=1,d=1,o=1
m=1,d=1,o=0
m=1,d=0,o=1
m=1,d=0,
m=1,d=0,o=0
m=1,d=0,o=0
In that sample, you can easily see that 1/2 of the "traditional" families have a good outcome, and 1/4 of the single-parent families have a good outcome. This is perfectly acceptable analysis, however, when you go to extrapolate to homosexual households, you are going to be tempted to say that "non m=1,d=1 families aren't going to work", and ignoring the fact that that's a poor extrapolation, you're also dead wrong because of a hidden variable. Let's add in "f (father was abusive; 0=no abouse, 1=abuse)":
m=1,d=1,o=1,f=0
m=1,d=1,o=0,f=1
m=1,d=0,o=1,f
m=1,d=0,o=0,f=0
m=1,d=0,o=0,f=1
m=1,d=0,o=0,
Now, it becomes obvious that the last two cases are single BECAUSE they WERE a traditional family which failed. In reality, it would make more sense to include them as a traditional family rather than as single-parents (after all, it was the abusive father who distrupted the family in the first place). Now we see that the statistics are exactly reversed.
Of course, this is a heavily biased sample, and in the real-world, you would not have such a large swing, but it would still be pronounced.
All of this ignores the results of the Latchkey study (this is where we get the term "dork", which is short for "door-key kid") which revealed that having a parent at home is a significant benefit to the kids, so if roughly the same fraction of homosexual couples can afford to stay home and take care of their kids as with straight couples, they should have better end-results than single-parent families.