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'."

86 of 861 comments (clear)

  1. best ever headline on msnbc ! by maharg · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole "would you not have allowed X to be born" argument against abortion is somewhat of a fallacy: there's no way to tell in advance precisely what will become of a person in their lives, so if you want to create "geniuses", by the argument, you should spend your entire life having more children. So what if aborting a child has a 1/N chance of destroying a world-changing genius - having an additional child has that same 1/N chance of creating a new world-changing genius, so you better get started!

      There may be some truth in an argument that "culling all people with 'Gene A' before they're born" (with the natural assumtpion that there will be other people born in their place) may have downsides if 'Gene A' has some positive side affects that aren't widely considered. But "would you have allowed (insert person here) to be born?" is a fallacy.

      --
      Aeris Died For Your Sins.
    2. Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is a chance a given child will be the next Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pot Pol, Jeffery Dahmer, or Charles Manson.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    3. Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Furthermore, if free will means anything,
      a) the aforenamed are responsible for their actions
      b) equally mad men could have arisen in their circumstances; their elimination would not guarantee much
      In summary, omniscience would seem to be a requirement prior to making adjustments.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    4. Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! by Spunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One economist recently claimed that legal abortion led to a drop in crime rates - which would favor the other side of this argument. It's an interesting question.

    5. Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! by cagle_.25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, no; you miss the point of the argument. The argument is designed to expose the fallacy behind the claim that "this life is not worth living."

      Suppose my wife and I have a medical test result which gives X% of a chance to have a child with autism -- no, that's too hard, since autism is a spectrum disease. Let's make it something genetically definite, like hermaphrodism -- are we then justified in deciding that "this life is not worth living", and killing off the baby?

      To do so places us in the position of arguing from the probability of a problem to a definite, terminal solution: kill the baby. But other possibilities exist, even if the problem is as severe as projected.

      The "would you have allowed (X person) to be born?" argument simply exposes the fallacy of arguing from a probability of lower quality of life to a definite conclusion: "terminate" the life.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    6. Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! by MC68000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It doesn't necessarily favor the pro-abortion argument if you realize that not everything that reduces crime is desirable. Certainly 24/7 government surveilance of every room in every house of every person in the world would reduce crime, but it certainly would not be desirable.

      Or, to extend the above economist's logic, why should we stop at merely encouraging abortions among those whose cultural and socioeconomic characteristics make their children more likely to be criminals? Sterilizing everybody in the inner cities would certainly reduce crime for the same reason that encouraging inner city residents to have abortions does. Should it be done?

      --
      E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
    7. Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! by xSauronx · · Score: 2, Funny

      or christian whitaker, who lived down the street from me as a child...man that kid was a prick.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    8. Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      we should not be denying anyone the chance of life, even if they have downs syndrome, or some other genetic abnormality, that is not a reason to kill them and deny them life.

      You're presuming that life is always worth living, regardless of circumstance.

      Of course, you're not the one living with constant pain, outcast from most of society, and knowing that you'll die at a very young age.

      So before you go spouting off again how life is always worth living, consider some worse cases, and at least consider that maybe, just maybe, some people would be better off not having been born.

    9. Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And the greater the number of free people, the greater the number of innovative ideas for transforming raw resources into goods and services that improve human lives. In free markets, more people mean more wealth.

      Doesn't follow at all. Being a free person does not imply being a creative person.

      And there have been plenty of creative slaves and subjects of authoritarianism. It was after all Nazis engineers who made rockets practical, and the authoritarian Soviet Union that put the first artificial satellite and first humans into orbit. Jazz and blues music was created by a people oppressed. Going way back, IIRC the alphabet that we use can be traced back to an innovation by slaves in Egypt, to use simple symbols derived from hieroglyphs to represent sounds.

      Nor can evem the most creative people exceed the carrying capacity of the environment. Give a group of craftmen 100 pounds of iron to make widgets, give them as much time as you like to develop efficent methods, and you will never get 200 pounds of iron tools out of them.

      Like many modern economists, Julian Simon operated under a set of axioms radically at odds with the physical reality in which we find ourselves. We live on a finite planet; following economic theory that disregards that basic fact, we have already passed the point where the human population exceeds the sustainable carrying capacity of the biosphere.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    10. Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! by WinterSolstice · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, all of those inventions are extremely important. Environmental arguments aside, those are critical.

      You want impact? Try CPUs. The impact from the creation of a single P4 is probably quite a bit greater than all of the rest. Low yield batches with extremely hazardous chemicals just so we can post on /.?

      -WS

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    11. Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He's financial doing well, but is he happy?

      There are rich people who are so unhappy they even kill themselves.

      Getting back to Billyboy, if he was truly happy, would he be so ruthless even though he is already so rich.

      Heck, I'd be happy with only $5 billion.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    12. Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      just maybe, some people would be better off not having been born.

      That's an oversimplification. If it were true, those people would be rationally attempting suicide, instead of struggling to keep living as long as they can.

      The question is not whether it is in the individual best interests of a genetically crippled person to be born, but whether allowing the birth is better for enjoyable human life for everyone.

      When it is considered that most parents considering abortion over a major congenital defect will try again for a luckier mix of genes the next year, the net effect on total human lives is actually positive. The pre-partum death of the first child means not only that a second will be born, but also that the second will probably live longer, happier, and cheaper.

    13. Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! by geek_xyu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "There is a chance a given child will be the next Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pot Pol, Jeffery Dahmer, or Charles Manson."

      You missed George W. Bush..

  2. What about gay children? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:What about gay children? by 77Punker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People already kill babies because they're inconvenient; why not kill them because they're even less convenient?

    2. Re:What about gay children? by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a faction that would very much like to define homosexuality as a genetic trait rather than a choice. Like some people are born with brown hair or red hair, etc. And some people are born gay. There is quite a bit of supporting evidence for this. But personally I'm not convinced (nor do I really care about other people's sexual orientation unless I actually plan to have sex with them)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:What about gay children? by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *shrug* I don't know if there is a gene for homosexuality. What I do know is the gay kids in high school were showing signs of their sexuality long before puberty. Everybody knew they were a bit different, by the way they acted, dressed, just behaved in general... Then guess what happened, some of them admitted they were gay during high school... I imagine others hid their secret.

      A lot of people say it's a choice.. Well, I never made the choice to be hetereosexual, that's just the way it was. And for those few gay kids that I went to school with, it wasn't their choice either, that's just the way they were. A gene causes this? No clue, I don't think it matter except to the religious & bigotted.

    4. Re:What about gay children? by DeadChobi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldnt it be ironic if an anti-abortion anti-gay parent had the choice between murdering a baby or raising a homosexual son/daughter?

      --
      SRSLY.
    5. Re:What about gay children? by Lehk228 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I kill babies for food, other reasons are morally wrong.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    6. Re:What about gay children? by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      2) A homosexual couple will not reproduce (no chance of hh mixing with hh, only Hh and Hh)

      Assuming there is a gay gene, then of course not, but you're ignoring huge social factors that have made passing that trait forward quite likely. And again, assuming this gene exists, if it were not for tyrannical religious groups, this gene may have faded away thousands of years ago. If the church really wants this gay 'disease' to go away, they should encourage early marriage for gay teens.

      3) By its nature, this genetic trait would find itself dwindling in existance.

      Cannot the same thing be said for Multiple sclerosis, aspergers, cystic fibrosis, hemophelia, sickle cell, tay-sachs, etc etc etc ? Hell even people with blue eyes are defying a strict interpretation of natural selection. Those disease have been around forever with no end in sight.

    7. Re:What about gay children? by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, I see! People in Afghanistan, for example. killed by having walls pushed to collapse on top of them did it to "be different" and to break the law "because it's there". I am intrigued by your ideas, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      Aeris Died For Your Sins.
    8. Re:What about gay children? by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Funny

      So when you were 3-5 years old, you said to yourself "Self! When your balls descend, you're going to find women who aren't your sister or mother (and if you aren't in Kentuky at the time, your cousin, though if you are, she really is one fine looking honey) totally hot and you'll want to bang them all night long?

      Well, maybe not. Maybe you were 8-10. That cute girl in class, you see her, and you think "ok brain, feel fuzzy now. Heart, you race." Right? You made the conscious and rational decision to have a crush on her? You thought about Wooly Willie teasing you, singing the whole "k-i-s-s-i-n-g" song at you every bus trip home for the next two weeks, and then said "yeah, I can live with that as long as I get to sit next to the red-haired girl"?

      Ok, maybe not even then. But you're an adult now, you're a Big Boy, you make the Big Decisions. Right?. And when that new woman in Accounting walks by (you know the one, for who casual Friday means no bra) you think to yourself "Prep for hormone release. Hormone release is go! Heartrate change is go! Erection in T minus 5! 4! 3!..."

      If you do, then the souls of one hundred thousand dead poets mourn for you, for you will never know romance. And I gotta say, you must suck in bed, what with you counting down every thrust out loud before you blow your wad.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  3. The same is true for most inventors and scientists by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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! --
  4. Let the State decide by Pope+Benedict+XVI · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  5. This is wrong by John+Seminal · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Raising a severely autistic child is a heartbreaking grind, and many people (and legal systems) consider termination to be a reasonable choice

    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."

    1. Re:This is wrong by Benanov · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's XOR. Obviously you fit in the second category. ;)

    2. Re:This is wrong by Jooly+Rodney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It doesn't have everything to do with whether or not the autistic person in question is going to lead a "happy" life or not, it also has to do with the time, effort, and $$$ spent on said person by the people who become legally responsible for him or her upon birth.

    3. Re:This is wrong by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know so many people with IQ's over 110

      probably not as many as you think, or as many as they think.

      As someone who sas scored over 160 on IQ tests many times, I can honestly say IQ is crap.
      Motivation is the key to innovation and success.

      I find it interesting that just because she is in a wheel chair you assume her IQ is less.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:This is wrong by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not surprising. The higher the IQ, the more of the crappyness of the world you actually *understand*. And the more you understand, the more miserable it makes you.

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
    5. Re:This is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually smarter people tend to be better adjusted than most folks. It is a myth that intelligence leads to misery.
      Also this entire topic is hilarious. Linking autism to geekiness?
      I can only assume most people have never genuinely encountered an autistic or person with aspergers.
      They don't function well, and if newton or einstien had it, it is to their credit they achieved what they did, inspite of their condition.

    6. Re:This is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well thats quite an insightful comment. Im not suprised to see your anti-American jab modded up to +5 already.

      You use the 0.001% of French people who are involved in wine-making as a metric for the entire country? Do you think that all the French people do is make wine all day? And you believe that they are doing it not for the money, but just because they like it.

      You really need to get out and travel more. There are many people who live outside of your (I suspect) white suburb that don't act like your parents.

      If you don't like the corporate world, then stop typing on your computer (made by multiple corporations), in your moms basement (probably built by a corporation), on the Internet (largely built out by corporations) and drop out and go make wine. Don't forget to raise the capital, market and be prepared to work 80 hour weeks. You might want to incorporate too while you are at it.

      Stupid kids.

    7. Re:This is wrong by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someone needs to mod this up, because it's absolutely true. In my experience, the more intelligent and observant and thoughtful someone is, and the more realistic they are, the less foolishly optimistic or happy they are about the world in which they live. The old saying, "ignorance is bliss," is quite true.

      --
      Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    8. Re:This is wrong by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It does not take money to do the things that make for happiness.

      However, it does take money to avoid all the things that make for unhappiness
      like starvation, infection, homelessness and so on.

    9. Re:This is wrong by shadow_slicer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Have you ever met someone with autism?
      My mother is a special education teacher. I've met her students.

      You're right, autistic people tend to be less functional in society (loud noises or changes to routine cause them to freak out). On the other hand, they tend to be amazingly knowledgeable about a few specific things. They may not be able to carry out a conversation, but they could write research papers on dinosaurs or whatever their personal interest is (and this is in elementary school).

      Autistic people have an extremely strong and narrow focus and tend to think logically. This gives them an advantage in scientific fields.

      "Geekiness" does have certain common characteristics with autism (especially milder forms like aspergers). Autistic people have trouble recognizing social cues, causing them trouble socializing normally. They also can adhere to either excessive cleanliness, or its opposite.
      They also show a certain social apathy, not showing appropriate interests in other people.

    10. Re:This is wrong by Dormann · · Score: 5, Informative
      Also this entire topic is hilarious. Linking autism to geekiness? I can only assume most people have never genuinely encountered an autistic or person with aspergers.

      Current estimates place someone with Asperger's Syndrome in every few hundred people. TFA doesn't do a good job of pointing out that Asperger's is what they call "high functioning autism", meaning that most of those with it can function and blend in with society if they choose to.

      The correlation seems so reasonable to me, it's barely worth mentioning. I would speculate that a typical layperson definition of geek would be "An intelligent, but socially awkward person. A loner." Autism literally means self-ism. "One who is drawn into one's self."

      Given the site you're reading now, I'd say odds are pretty good that you're working with someone that has some form of autism. They probably forgot to mention it to you.

    11. Re:This is wrong by gim_alelen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is also wrong in some parts. As a former special education teacher and currently a social worker working with autistic children, I can tell you that most autistic children do not show the "genius" for one or two things. That is a stereotype. What most people are referring to when they speak of this is neither Asperger's or autism, but a related disorder on the PDD spectrum referred to as savant syndrome.

      Your description of the difficulties in social functioning for PDD spectrum children was spot on.

      -Jim

  6. Where? by Malc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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?

    1. Re:Where? by damsa · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can abort a fetus for any reason. Most popular reason is the prom dress won't fit right.

    2. Re:Where? by rcw-work · · Score: 2, Informative
      I thought I'd read that parents of autistic kids tend to never have children again?

      The "Geek Syndrome" Wired article even gives the tendency a name: "stoppage".

    3. Re:Where? by thomkt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being the parent of a severely autistic child, I can tell you that it can be equally rewarding and heartbreaking. Rachel has the expressive language of an 18 month old and the receptive language of a 3 year old locked in the body of an 11 year old.

      There are times when Rachel gets out-of-control and needs to be physically restrained from hurting herself or others, and there are times that she gets into the (locked) cupboard and eats the cake we were going to have for dessert and yes, we feel like we need to be 100% vigilant 100% of the time and it wears on us, her siblings and on Rachel.

      But at the same time, you've never seen such happiness for things that you and I take for granted; writing her name, saying the alphabet, playing "Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes" and being able to answer "How old are you?" are all things that most 3 or 4 year olds can do but at 11, they're accomplishments for Rachel.

      In all likelihood she'll never be able to read and write functionally, but she can identify her favorite DVDs, put it in the player, make sure the stereo and TV are set properly and start the movie. She can also log into the computer, launch a browser and find the bookmark that takes her Playhouse Disney.

      For a peek into our home-life, take a look at http://www.patientcenters.com/autism/news/tips_lif e.html (I'm not the author, but it sure it close to home)

      Do the highs out weigh the lows? It's hard to tell sometimes, but when I tuck her in at night and she wants to make sure that Pooh-Bear and Piglet get tucked in too, it sure seems like it.

  7. The Problems.. by sammykrupa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is thought that Einstein had ADD. What would have happened if we gave him drugs?

    Einstein: Leave me alone, i'm depressed!

  8. Social awkwardness != genius by the_rev_matt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Social awkwardness != genius by FidelCatsro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking as someone who is socialy awkward and classified as agenius(I cant spell ,do not take that into account .. )I know all too well the misfits who get thrown into the catogry .
      All too often folks who are clearly of genius level inteligence are ignored in favour of quick witted kids who can make trucks with lego at age 2 .
      Genius though is an off title in many terms ,high IQ is not equalto genius.
      Einstein was not your model High IQ student , the same can be said for many .\
      Austism is not a mesure of IQ either ,No condition is . It just so hapens several of a group may show the signs but this does not make the rule

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    2. Re:Social awkwardness != genius by pomo+monster · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "I cant spell ,do not take that into account"

      I may disagree with you sometimes, but in the end, Mr. Catsro, I think you're the best evidence Slashdot has to offer that spelling isn't always correlated with intelligence. Often, but not always.

      I've known plenty of dyslexic folks growing up and in college, and some of them are the most creative individuals I've ever met (and not just creative spellers).

      Hope you don't take this as a flame.
    3. Re:Social awkwardness != genius by porcupine8 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I think you're mixing up "high IQ" with "straight As." Einstein certainly had a very high IQ, but no, he wasn't a great student. Lots of people with high IQs are not great students, mainly because our educational system is deisgned such that they learn next to nothing for a couple of years and then give up on ever learning anything.

      You're right, though, IQ is not equal to genius. (Which makes me wonder how you were "classified as a genius" except via an IQ test - unless you're a MacArthur recipient.) Genius generally requires a high IQ as well as a high level of creative productivity. And many high IQ kids ARE ignored, because their teachers misunderstand the gifted - my fiance was referred for IQ testing for mental retardation because he rarely spoke and didn't play with the other kids. They tested him, then said Oops, sorry, he belongs in the gifted program, not the special school for MR kids. Our bad.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  9. Hey. by captnitro · · Score: 2, Funny

    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

  10. Gratuitous Dilbert - THE KNACK! by dsginter · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    More
  11. Re:The same is true for most inventors and scienti by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  12. Don't know about Einstein by woah · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Newton was clearly autistic (judging by historical accounts) and so was Edison. I'm not sure about Einstein.

    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.

    1. Re:Don't know about Einstein by damsa · · Score: 3, Funny

      Einstein couldn't talk until he was five, and also he married his cousin. I rest my case.

  13. so sad by danheskett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:so sad by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I feel for you. I have two nephews who had birth defects, one mild and one serious. They're great kids and generally happy. Caring for them was very hard on the parents, likely leading to their divorce and a lifetime of constant medical care. I have a second cousin who was born with Down's Syndrome and it's fairly mild. His parents love him very much and he's gotten great support.

      We were in a situation with our second daughter where there was a one-in-twenty chance she might be born with Down's Syndrome. We went ahead and got the tests done and fortunately all went well.

      On the other hand, we probably wouldn't have carried her to term if she had it. The reasons are complicated, but they didn't feel entirely selfish. What I appreciate about our society is that we're allowed to make decisions about our own family.

      Even if you plan on having the child anyway, it can be good to know. Children with Down's Syndrome have a higher chance of birth defects and you can have a surgeon on call should the need arise.

    2. Re:so sad by utexaspunk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      don't be so quick to judge those who don't make the same decisions as you. in other cultures a child born with such a defect would be left in the woods, or similarly cast out. there are many of us who would rather invest our parenting efforts and limited time raising a child who will grow up to be independent and able to carry on our genetic line.

      not all of us believe that that cluster of cells which has implanted itself in a woman's uterus has a soul, or is even yet a human being with all the rights that accompany such status, and would rather stop a frustrating and problematic situation before it develops into an irreversible one.

      don't get me wrong- i respect your choice. it's noble, and all that. but nobody should be forced to live with an avoidable anomalous situation and accept it as "god's will", as not everyone believes that.

    3. Re:so sad by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      would rather stop a frustrating and problematic situation before it develops into an irreversible one.
      Legalities aside, how does birth make the situation any more or less reversible?
    4. Re:so sad by danheskett · · Score: 3, Informative

      it's noble, and all that. but nobody should be forced to live with an avoidable anomalous situation and accept it as "god's will", as not everyone believes that.
      I said nothing about "god's will", I believe. Niether of us are overtly religious.

      it's noble, and all that. but nobody should be forced to live with an avoidable anomalous situation and accept it as "god's will", as not everyone believes that.
      Make no doubt about, people who abort because of a Downs Syndrome diagnosis are not doing so at 8 weeks, they are doing so at 22, 24, 30, even 32 and 34 weeks, when the child is developed to an amazing degree, and in many cases could survive outside the womb with no medical care, no life support, and no special treatment. My daughter is 33 weeks, coming up on 34, and without much of a doubt could survive handily with only minimal extra-care at this point. We are well past a "clump of cells".

      My point is and was that viewing a birth defect in your child or a handicap in someone as a "problematic situation" that needs to be cured is really not right in my view, and that it's a sad thing when a culture gets to the point that a life is worthless and not worth living without being physically perfect from the day you are born.

      And it can only lead to more and more depravities.

      Especailly with Downs Syndrome, of all things, which allows people to still live healthy, happy, productive lives.

    5. Re:so sad by utexaspunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, not everyone believes that unborn children have a soul or is human, but denying it won't change the reality that they do.

      honestly- why should i believe that they do? why should i believe that anyone has a soul? because the bible says so?

      from what i understand, good science now indicates that most life, including human behavior, can be measured and described as the result of a highly complex but clearly logical organic computational phenomenon occurring in not only the human mind, which is clearly its most sophisticated manifestation to date, but in all animal minds. It is this phenomenon which we are only now beginning to comprehend the possibility of understanding.

      There is much evidence which suggests there is little of this computational activity for much of the first half of the pregnancy, and that termination at this point would result in very little suffering. The costs to society of having what are clearly malformed and evolutionarily nonviable and non-reproductive candidates -and I'm not talking ethnic cleansing here, silly. there are some things that are clearly debatable about what constitutes a "nonviable" candidate, and this certainly excludes cosmetic issues, gender, and other obviouly racist or sexist strawman you may put up, but do not honestly tell me that those with Down's Syndrome are seriously evolutionarily viable? That our gene pool would seriously benefit from the presence of this anomaly? If it can be detected and eliminated early on, it would greatly benefit society as a whole with no suffering or coersion.

      Some may even agree that this could be extended to pregnancies which are unwanted. There is significant evidence which suggests a direct link between unwanted pregnancies and many social ills. If they can be stopped at a point where it is clear that a significant manifestation of this computational phenomenon we call "consciousness" forms, I don't see anything wrong with it, and what your church says shouldn't affect the laws, as nothing to suggests it's true beyond "faith".

      Sorry ...guess I'm in one of my more atheistic moods today :)

    6. Re:so sad by utexaspunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ie, you're more interested in creating a child to carry your genetics than in creating a life to love, hold, and care for.

      What is the point of having children, and really anything else we do here if it is not to make every effort to maximize our long-term survival and prosperity as a species?

      Perhaps I should ask why you care so much about your specific genetic line. Unless you can prove that your genetic line will be advantageous in the future (which you can't)

      Nobody's saying anyone can prove a genetic line will be advantageous in the future. What I'm saying is that there are certain genetic anomalies which nobody could reasonbly argue are viable or would be good for us evolutionarily.

      I can't begin to see why you'd decide to go off and end a life to maximize the chances of creating the single life you're able to financially insure.

      Again, you're drawing the wrong conclusion from my argument. I'm saying there is reasonable evidence to conclude that this electrochemical computational phenomenon we call "life" does not develop beyond that of a very rudimentary organism until around halfway in the pregnancy, and there is some evidence which shows that giving people the option to do so greatly improves the peace and and quality of life in a community, which in turn increases long-term survivability and prosperity of the species.

      So, if you could only find out your child had Down's syndrome at 10 years, would you be okay with people killing their children then? Would you require a doctor's note? What if it wasn't until 19 years that symptoms showed up?

      Of course not! But are you seriously not able to distinguish between leaving a baby to the wolves and destroying what is clearly a non-sentient mass of tissue? It's significantly less sentient than that animal you just ate was. I don't suppose you're a vegan?

      Life is life. It's a sad state of affairs when people place their own selfish wants over the responsibility that goes with it, just like it's a sad state of affairs that people would inhibit risk reduction (ie, go out of their way to block contraceptive use). It's one thing to block the contract of sperm and egg (analogous to not having sex at all). It's quite another to, even with contraceptives, having egg and sperm unite, then deciding you're not able to take the responsibility. If people were taught early on... blah, blah...

      It's not just for one's own selfish wants, but the benefit to society and the future of the species. Do the benefits of a society without unwanted children outweigh giving you the satisfaction of making people suffer "the consequences of their actions"? So instead you'd have society suffer for years the consequences of irrational inaction?

      No matter how much sex education you give people, some will still make mistakes or have accidents. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that unwanted and unprepared pregnancies often result in poverty, psychological problems, and crime. There is also plenty of evidence that a large part of the pregnancy the fetus could hardly be called a sentient being, but merely a chemical reaction which will result in one. Why not stop the problem before it has started?

  14. geekiness is overrated by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:geekiness is overrated by tius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmmmm, true for a certain subset, but there are holes in this. E.g. You're assuming that the most valuable thing in life is money and that some genius level ideas are not better off being left alone.

  15. Future whoevers by Council · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  16. Re:The same is true for most inventors and scienti by John+Seminal · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Genetic testing will probably cause more harm than good

    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."

  17. Re:ah, Asperger's syndrome by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Funny

    The malady every geek wants to have.

    Syphilis?

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  18. Gates a genius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  19. I probably would have been aborted by Vile+Slime · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  20. Re:bill gates, genius? by arodland · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  21. Re:The same is true for most inventors and scienti by nizo · · Score: 2, Funny

    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?

  22. Re:Oh come on, give us some proof... by Ann+Elk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Many years ago (early 80's), I worked for Tandy Corporation. We had a meeting with Bill and a few other folks from Microsoft. Bill spent most of the meeting sitting sideways in his chair, rocking back and forth, chewing on the leather band of his wristwatch. He seemed to not be paying any attention, but it was obvious from the questions he asked that he was listening to everything.

  23. Re:The same is true for most inventors and scienti by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  24. My nephew has Down Syndrome by anomaly · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?
  25. That's the doctors for you. by hypnagogue · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  26. Re:Let's get something straight: GEEK != AUTISTIC! by bnenning · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  27. Re:Oh come on, give us some proof... by SporkLand · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's comfortable to sit sideways, the leather tastes good, and it's easier to analyze what someone is saying when you aren't looking at them. I often close my eyes or stair at blank walls when trying to listen to people.

    I have all of those behaviours and I can assure you that I am no genius nor idiot.

  28. Genetic diversity. by torokun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Genetic diversity. by robertjw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When obesity kills off a huge segment of the population that, for whatever reason, just can't say no to the tripple butter dipped deep-fried Crisco burger

      Even better than your accountant example, what happens when there is no longer a food surplus and the obesity gene suddenly comes in handy. One thing I think is often overlooked in our current "obesity epidemic" is that a hundred or so years ago a skinny person (male or female) was not considered attractive. There wasn't a McDonalds on every corner, so it was a good thing to be able to retain some fat. Wiping out obesity on a genetic level could create some serious consequences when there is a food shortage here in the US.

  29. Re:The same is true for most inventors and scienti by tgibbs · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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



    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.

  30. Re:Oh come on, give us some proof... by JoshRosenbaum · · Score: 2, Funny

    chewing on the leather band
    -- Actually the watch was a computer, and the band contained short range antennas that transferred the meeting through Bill's fillings directly into his brain.

    sitting sideways in his chair
    -- The watch just needed to be positioned correctly to receive the most data. Sitting sideways did exactly this for Bill.

    rocking back and forth
    -- This ancient direct-to-brain method had the side effect of causing your fillings to go crazy. Something akin to the sensation people with fillings get when they chew tin foil. :)

  31. Re:Genetics and Free Will are Mutually Exclusive by Erioll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure I could give you a laundry list of Good and Evil acts, and you'd probably agree with 100% of them, but the moment somebody disagrees, and does one of those heinious (sp?) acts, it's OK because nobody can tell another what is good or bad?

    I call BS.

  32. That is wrong by Dormann · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Do you mean to imply that intelligence primarily serves to help us understand that which is crappy?

    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.

  33. Re:Nuclear Family is better than non-traditional. by RatBastard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Kids do better in the traditional nuclear family than in non-traditional setups.

    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.
  34. Not exactly by noamsml · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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).

  35. Evidence and Analysis by Prien715 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  36. Re:Nuclear Family is better than non-traditional. by GoddessOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Do homosexuals have more mental health problems as well? Yes. Various research studies have found that homosexuals have higher rates of: Alcohol abuse Drug abuse Nicotine dependence Depression Suicide

    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?

  37. Re:Genetics and Free Will are Mutually Exclusive by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, lets take a look at some terribly heinous crimes:

    Sex out of wedlock.
    Paying for sex out of wedlock.
    Sex out of wedlock with someone of the same gender.
    Marrying someone of the same gender.
    Polygamy/Polyandry.
    Purchasing a "mail order bride".
    Teaching students that sex using a condom can protect against some STDs and help prevent unwanted children.
    Aborting a fetus that would normally survive but be crippled mentally or physically.
    Aborting a fetus that would not normally survive, but would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the attempt at life, just in case it does survive.
    Allowing a woman to die after 15 years in a coma on life support.
    Refusing to allow the government to pass a law forcing said woman to not die.
    Aborting an unwanted fetus.
    Copying a song onto tape from the radio.
    Copying a song onto mp3 from a cd.
    Copying a song onto mp3 over the internet.
    Teaching someone else how to copy a song from a cd with copy protection.
    Gambling.

    All of these and more are "Evil" acts that someone or another thinks is "wrong", and yet those feelings are not universally held, and/or have changed over time. As the grandparent said, some things that are evil and unspeakable to me aren't to others, and vice-versa. Common grounds are few and far between. I wonder what cannibalistic tribes think of other people's revulsion of killing and eating humans.

    Vagary's statement that "only creatures capable of evil are capable of good" is itself not logically sound. If someone was born who never once thought of killing anyone, would they be incapable of learning CPR and saving a life? Maybe my CPR training in Boy Scouts was what led me to work in tech support. Driven to evil thoughts by my capability to do good?

    Perhaps on a species-wide scale if humans became incapable of breaking laws, starting wars, or hurting one another, there would no longer be "heroics" or other large scale displays of "good" that everyone could point to, but even if we did somehow create a beautiful utopia, people would still be born into the world, cared for as children, and raised into this society... would this not be "good"?

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  38. Autism is a genetic vulnerability to immigration by Baldrson · · Score: 2, Informative
    The numbers say that while autism has a genetic component, the reason it has exploded in recent years isn't a population explosion among geeks, it is a pre-existing genetic susceptibility an environmental insult brought into the West by south Asians. It might be an intestinal bug spread in Indian restaurants by low caste workers or it might be something less obvious.

    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.

  39. point counterpoint by KMnO4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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.