This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asperger syndrome article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Asperger syndrome is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles
Just because some low functioning Aspies do not understand how to behave in a situation in which they are expected to do so by society, they are not lacking empathy. A psychopath lacks empathy, An aspie does not, neither is it a diagnostic criteria for Asperger - OR Autism.
I have empathy, and so do alot of others with the diagnosis, if a person is lacking in empathy then that person is probably better diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder (Check the WHO criteria!). End this bullshit trying to attribute psychopathic traits to Aspies and Auties, it is extremely insulting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.160.88 (talk • contribs)
The mistake is your own. You are employing terms in a non-technical manner. Work on theory of mind and psychopaths commonly distinguishes between 'empathising' (aka 'co-cognition', 'theory of mind') to denote the ability to perceive/accurately simulate/project the cognitive states of others and 'sympathising' ('fellow feeling') the ability to respond to the emotional states of others. As you point out (the majority of) people with asperger's are unimpaired as regards the latter despite being deficient as regards the former and visa versa for psychopaths. But the word 'empathy' as used in this article /is/ the correct usage of the term. Your problem is that the colloquial uses of 'sympathy' and 'empathy' are largely synonymous but this does not reflect either the way in which people who study psychopathy or theory of mind use the term nor should it be reflected in the article. Two caveats; 1) You do make a case, I suppose, for using terms which don't have equivalents in folk psychology which is what a lot of researchers do (hence the 'aka's above) however the empathy/sympathy distinction was well enough defined back in the 1700s by Hume; it's just unfortunate that between then and now colloquial English has conflated the two. 2) Given the emotional deficits of psychopaths leads to some related theory of mind deficits regarding the ascription of emotional states to others this leads some (e.g. Baron-Cohen in his new 'circle of empathy' stuff) to treat that as being part a multi-faceted theory of mind mechanism. I'm personally scepticial of this but a) Baron-Cohen isn't 'confused'; he doesn't think aspies are psychopaths and b) the debate probably comes down to recherche issues to do with definitions of modularity, much more specific than the objection you're making. Crack the spine of any book on theory of mind or psychopathy (I recommed Nichols & Stich's Mindreading and RJR Blair's 'The Psychopath') and you'll see your objection is ill placed. You're right, but your use of the term 'empathy' actually tracks what tends to be called 'sympathy'. 94.193.220.27 (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia which is intended to be read by the general public. You simply cannot assume that some super-technical meaning of the word "empathy" will be understood by our general readership. Indeed, if you look up "empathy" in Wiktionary - it gives two meanings, one of which relates to the perception of emotion in others and the other which relates to the understanding of such emotion:
the intellectual identification of the thoughts, feelings, or state of another person
capacity to understand another person's point of view or the result of such understanding
It is therefore absolutely necessary to spell out in more detail what is meant by this and you cannot simply dismiss the problem that User:Dbrodbeck states as misuse of the English language. SteveBaker (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What it hypothesized to be the case is that somewhere along the Autism spectrum...the ability to recognize the mental states of other people is impaired. It does not eliminate the ability to feel emotion - quite the opposite, we tend to be - if anything - a little more emotional than the norm.
Some sources suggest that a structure of Mirror neurons is missing, abnormally small or somehow malfunctioning in Autistics and in people who are truly Asperger.
For me, who was diagnosed late in life, the best analogy is with the cast of StarTrek. Imagine Data - an android who has no emotion whatever, Captain Picard and Dianna Troy (who is a half-betazoid empath). I'm not Data...I definitely feel emotion - and when I know someone else has some emotion, I react correctly to that. But it's like everyone else on the planet but me is Diana Troy. Diana looks at someone and can tell that they are bored or excited or annoyed or...whatever. I can't easily do that. Unless it's written in 50 point type with <blink> tags around it - I won't spot it.
Once I was diagnosed and the astounding fact that I live on a planet of virtual telepaths became evident, I turned my aspie laser-like focus onto learning how it is that everyone but me is half betazoid. It's subtle stuff - firstly, there are things like body posture and very subtle facial expressions that we aspies can see - but only if we take special, conscious effort to do it. Since some of us dislike making eye contact - that's difficult - and it does require some effort. Secondly though, we don't have those mirror neurons - which for everyone else means that they have a continual (albeit somewhat simplified) mental model of the other person's mind running as a little sub-proceess inside their own. So when a neurotypical says something - it is being run against what their mental model of the other person says that they will feel about that. They don't always get it right - but it's pretty darned good.
So as an aspie - if I'm not watching their faces and body posture carefully - and making a real conscious effort to consider their point of view - I'll say inappropriate things, I'll keep talking about things that they long ago lost interest in, I'll fail to notice when something is intended ironically.
But Asperger's is a spectrum disorder. It's possible for someone to be so just fractionally on the scale that this impairment is hard to detect. It's possible to be so close to autistic that you almost fail to notice that other people are actually thinking, reasoning creatures at all.
Most of us are just terrible at parties.
Beware also that it's quite fashionable for people to claim to be aspies when they just want to excuse bad manners or whatever.
Dianna Troy and Wesley Crusher should have been thrown off the show. Meh. I'm like Pavlov's dog, you mention ST:TNG, I've got to say something. There is some dumbass editor who accuses all skeptics on Wikipedia of having Asperger's, which made me lack empathy towards him. Anyways, good job in using ST:TNG as an illustrative point. Still don't like Troy though. Or Wesley. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions20:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there is some confusion between affective empathy (being sad because other person is sad) and cognitive empathy (understanding that the other person is sad). The "empathy" that people with AS supposedly lack is the cognitive empathy--79.169.165.150 (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well said! That's it exactly. The problem so often is that people so often don't see their emotions being reflected by their aspie partners and assume that they don't have that empathy. Those that stop and tell their partners how they feel, quickly learn that most aspies are more than able to respond appropriately. This explains (I think) why sources are confused on the subject. It suggest we make this distinction explicit in our article. SteveBaker (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That might be mixed up again. As I understand it, people with Asperger's frequently have and use cognitive empathy, which is learned from careful, studied observation, as was said earlier. It's affective, intuitive (Tony Attwood says), empathy which is impaired. They have difficulty identifying with (affective), not necessarily identifying (cognitive), neurotypical's emotions.
But either way, it's because so many of the semantic elements of the communication, both spoken verbal and non-verbal are fleeting and subtle, therefore overlooked. Printed and recorded communication is much, much, easier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.187.32 (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible, with training and close observation for an Aspie to pick up on some of the cues to the emotion of others. But it's hard work, and when emotions are highly charged anyway, it's easy to forget to check.
Printed/recorded communication isn't easier - but it puts neurotypical and aspie on a level playing field. In email, everyone is an aspie - but we've had more practice at it! SteveBaker (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's another theory in circulation, too. People are also saying that, due to depressing overload in global data, people in general find affective empathy difficult. I mean, if you're worried about the people of Rwanda being wiped out in a kind of attempted genocide unseen since WWII, it may be hard to care that your friend failed a test. Since this overload has more or less corresponded with the mis- and over-diagnosis of aspies, it could seem that this general trend only applies to us. Furthermore, if it's marginally harder for people with AS to conceal or control their emotions, it may be harder for us to pretend to care in these situations than it is for normal people. To be perfectly honest, this theory is based primarily on observation and a rather poorly written article on the subject, claiming that children today simply care less, a sentiment which certainly is BS. Teach267 (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that's a part of the whole misconception. Aspies most certainly do not "care less" - they are simply unable to read the emotions of others. Once you tell an aspie how you're feeling (or how some other person is feeling), they are perfectly able to care. It is a matter of detection, not the consequences of that detection that is lacking. That is the message we need to get across here - however, finding RS that say that in those clear and simple terms is difficult. SteveBaker (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of personal opinion and anecdote is taking over this talk page-- please see WP:TALK. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article based on WP:MEDRS. Personal discussions, anecdote and speculation may occur on individual's user talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to establish the NPOV position without some discussion along these lines. The guidelines in WP:TALK are rather general and hardly critical to the well-being of the encyclopedia. All that's being affected here is a little disk space. I think we can be a little less uptight about that rule here. SteveBaker (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you on general terms, here specifically anecdote and a failure to discuss reliable medical sources has taken over every section on the page, hence the notice of how talk pages should be used appropriately, and what kind of sourcing is required for Wikipedia. Most of the discussions taking over this page have zero to do with what reliable sources say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im a bit confused about this whole thing. from what I can tell (Warning: Personal Unverifiable Anecdote Because Its Really Hard To Find Correctly Worded Stuff) the confusion centers around either how emotions are detected, whether they're experienced at all, and the response to them. Having potentially incorrect information alongside correct information is not too big a problem from my point of view, since it can be tidied up after a format for presenting the various claimed/supported maladies is established.
I am not able to find much of use on google, or anything like that. I just want to get this information cleaned up and codified into a standard format that doesnt require scouring the talk page. As it is, all sources really feel..incomplete and kinda rammed together. While i get that thats gonna happen on wikipedia, a simple listing of medically verifiable conditions in regard to social interactions (but not necessarily interpersonal relationships. Thats rightly covered on another page. In this case, I mean general social interaction, not friend/family interaction.) For the very specific stuff, a warning on the page about unclear research areas and emerging theories would cover most of the issue brought up above. If I'm wrong or i missed something on this page or another page, please feel free to ignore this. At this point the article is incredibly confusing. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suspect Assertion
I am referring to this:
According to the Adult Asperger Assessment (AAA) diagnostic test, a lack of interest in fiction (written or drama) and the positive preference towards non-fiction is common among adults with the disorder, which might explain the lack of understanding regarding verbal symbolisms and nonliteral language. [33][34].
The wording of the bolded text sounds unencyclopedic and like the editor's assertion. I don't know how the citations could possibly assert that causal relationship, and if anything, it seems to be stated backwards. I will leave it to a better man than me to edit. Nathandelaselva (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I know the test they are talking about. You answer about 150 yes/maybe/no questions and it produces a chart that tracks various attributes and adds a list of explanations for your specific results. You can only read the conclusions for attributes you actually showed in testing.
That would make this an utterly unacceptable source for Wikipedia because most of our readers will be unable to produce that result if they visit that page. But perhaps the site says this as a result of more information about the individual than just the choice of fiction/non-fiction. We don't know. So, yeah - I agree that this should go. I'm also very wary of these generalizations. I have Aspergers - I love fiction - I have trouble with non-literal language. QED.
Children with AS appear to have particular weaknesses in areas of nonliteral language that include humor, irony, and teasing. Although individuals with AS usually understand the cognitive basis of humor, they seem to lack understanding of the intent of humor to share enjoyment with others.
Well, let me again point out that we are still all individuals. Even in neurotypical children and adults, there is a huge range of sense of humor. We aspies are no different. But I think the problem I, personally, have here is that some forms of humor are (at face value) indistinguishable from non-humor without the validation of emotion on the part of the speaker. If they put on an angry face and say "You did 'such a good job on your work, I should give you a promotion" - then the angry face tells you that this is probably sarcasm or irony or something. The emotion expressed explicitly in the words doesn't match the facial expression - so neurotypicals can recognize the discontinuity and spot the sarcasm. An aspie might not notice the facial expression of the anger emotion - and using only the verbal information, assume that they really are being congratulated.
I find that when I'm in a social context where jokes are being hurled around and everyone is having obvious fun - then it's easy for me to spot, enjoy and respond to humor and I seem perfectly normal. There is enough context to tell me that almost everything is a joke without emotion-blindness getting in the way. The problem most often comes about when a joke is interjected into a serious conversation and is subtle enough to plausibly be an actual part of the conversation. Then I may miss the joke, an perhaps be seriously offended or something like that.
The best way to avoid this is to tell your closest friends about your AS and educate them into what it means. That way they can compensate by maybe nudging you in the ribs and saying "Hey! Smile Steve! It's a joke!".
There is a lot to be learned about coping strategies! For what it's worth, I'm extremely jealous of you. You've learned probably the most important thing you'll ever learn - how your own mind works - and you've learned it early enough to figure out how to cope with it. You'll have a much happier life as a result. I spent close to 50 years of my life screwing up before I learned what it was that set me apart!
Celebrate your AS! We aspies are a proud lot - we love the upsides and help each other to cope with the downsides - and for the most part, live happy and fulfilled lives with people we love and who love us. I don't personally know a single adult aspie who would want to be cured. SteveBaker (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As cliched as that sounds, I agree. I'm also a child diagnosed with AS (with full procedure, of course,) and even though I was diagnosed at the age of 10, my ability to handle my peers and teachers up until that point was made more dismal only by the observation that I was the only one who realized I wasn't picking up on social problems.
But, to return to the original topic, I thought that statement sounded backwards and generalized as well. My favorite authors are Issac Asimov and Edgar Allen Poe, both of whom had a phenomenal grasp of humor and irony, which they used liberally in their works. In fact, The Tell-Tale Heart remains to this day the textbook example of narrative irony. Furthermore, I find tone much easier to distinguish on paper than in real life, though, once again, large situations with plenty of context are helpful. On paper, there's time to tie the statement into the established mood, and literature has the added advantage of including explanations of what the characters are thinking and feeling. That, coupled with the absence of any details which might detract from the author's point, makes fiction one of my greatest pleasures. Even assuming we're exceptions and that is a rule, that statement is still mixing up cause and effect. I'm going to try to remove it now. Teach267 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this article is semi-protected. If I may ask for permission to edit out this statement from the nearest administrator...Teach267 (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we don't base Wikipedia article text on anecdote; changes or corrections proposed should reflect what the sources say, not personal opinion. Has anyone accessed the source? Please confine talk page discussion to review of sources rather than anecdote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asperger's Syndrome and eating disorders
I have been told by a clinical psychologist I know that there is a researcher who believes that eating disorders such as
anorexia nervosa are actually a form of Asperger's syndrome. I know the psychologist who told me this expressed some skepticism about the idea, but it reminds me of how the Radio Four series All in the Mind said, in an early episode of the series being broadcast in the springof2011, that anorexia nervosa may be related to autism. I do not know a lot about this theory myself, and I do not even recall the name of the researcher who proposed it, but if any one is well-informed on this issue, perhaps it could go in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems really unlikely that one is a form of the other (ie that they are different sides of the same underlying condition) - I've come to know a LOT of aspies over the past few years - and I've never met one with an eating disorder. "A researcher who believes..." is not a well recognized scientific finding! We'd certainly need "peer-reviewed scientific journal" levels of evidence before we could say anything like this in the article. Also, a connection to Autism doesn't necessarily imply a connection to Aspergers. Consider this: Aspergers is mostly associated with how sufferers see others - Anorexia is all about self-image. Aspergers is most commonly prevalent in boys (at least 2:1, maybe 4:1 boys to girls), Anorexia is almost entirely a girl thing (9:1 girls to boys). Anorexia appears to relate to a failing of the endocrine system - if this were present in Autism and Aspergers' we'd have a MUCH better handle on those conditions than we currently do. You can cure someone of Anorexia - you can't fix, or even lessen the symptoms of Aspergers'. Anorexic patients will frequently recover - over a matter of one to two years. Only 20% of Asperger patients ever "grow out of it" - the rest are stuck with it for their entire lives.
Having said that - there is considerable evidence of comorbidity of Anorexia and Autism. (ie, the two conditions happen together more often than is suggested by chance). But that can be said of a number of essentially unrelated conditions (ADHD, for example). Our Anorexia article has a section on the comorbidity issue with Autism - which has a bunch of references. But comorbidity can suggest no more than a common set of environmental factors - or that the symptoms of one condition worsen the symptoms of the other. SteveBaker (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments here. I did say in my above comment, that I am not too well informed on this theory, so there was no way that I personally wished to edit the article to say anything on this ! It is just something I heard, and I wondered whether any one reading this knew anything of this. I appreciate that edits here would need specific citations and appropriate names of theorists. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here is an article called "Is anorexia the female Asperger's?"
You can see it the Times Online - hardly an academic source. I think it is Carol Gilchrist who linked the two conditions, and also a psychologist called Jacobi. I can let you know if I discover more information on this. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting possibility - but if the difference is sex-linked genetics then you'd probably want to classify them as completely separate conditions for that reason. SteveBaker (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I may interject, I'm a professionally diagnosed female aspie, and I actually think that any relation between anorexia and AS wouldn't be genetic. I've never felt the temptation to starve myself, or to indulge in other eating disorders. However, I'm speaking primarily from experience as an aspie, so I would appreciate an explanation. If anything, a relation between AS and anorexia would have to be psychological, with the former causing the latter. As the wikipedia article mentions, people with AS still like social interaction, of a type. Failure to befriend normal people in this kind of interaction may prove frustrating, which could eventually lead to desperation for acceptance, and therefore anorexia. Teach267 (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very interesting, but please see WP:MEDRS for the level of sourcing required on medical articles, particularly an FA. Until/unless secondary review articles discuss this, it doesn't belong here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About the sex-based differences mentioned above. I have been informed that males with Aperger's syndrome outnumber females with the condition by ten to one. However, the source who informed me of this pointed out that becaue autism spectrum disorders manifest themselves in different ways in males and females, the figure may only be four to one. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's all too relevant here - and the actual formal article that this journal entry is (presumably) based upon is a key paper for this Wikipedia page. Finding a link like this for aspergers is a key finding. After all, aside from the Neanderthal connection (which my wife must NEVER find out about - or I'll never be called anything else!) - this formally links "advanced mathematics skills, information processing, logic, analytical intelligence, concentration skills, obsession–compulsion and Asperger's syndrome". The relationship between those other genetic traits and aspies is a new thing. Yeah - we have to write about this. Does anyone know where the full article resides? Has it even been published yet? SteveBaker (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the modern eye, Neanderthals may not be quite as aesthetically pleasing, but they did have bigger brains than modern humans (useful ammunition if your wife finds out about the purported Neanderthal connection, though the fact is denied by anti-Neanderthal chauvinists). ← ZScarpia13:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm accessing that article correctly, all I see is speculative conversation between individuals ... not the sort of article we should be using ... a proper medical review would be more appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - that actual piece won't do as a solid reference of fact - but I presume that if someone did all of that study - and came to such an important conclusion - then there must be an actual peer-reviewed article somewhere. SteveBaker (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, do I have to point out that the Futures columns in Nature are science fiction? This is one of the problems with Google: something that is obvious when you see it in context may look quite different when you come across it as a result of a search. Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. When the Futures piece was published, in 2008, the Neanderthal genome had not yet been sequenced, so it was less likely to cause confusion. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't used these talk page things yet and all this formatting is scaring me right now. Here are some peer reviewed sources that imply a link between the genes garnered via neanderthal admixture and the genes that code for ASDs:
"The development of cognitive abilities during individual growth is linked to the maturation of the underlying neural circuitry: in humans, major internal brain reorganization has been documented until adolescence, and even subtle alterations of pre- and perinatal brain development have been linked to changes of the neural wiring pattern that affect behavior and cognition [9]. The uniquely modern human pattern of early brain development is particularly interesting in the light of the recent breakthroughs in the Neanderthal genome project [10], which identified genes relevant to cognition that are derived in living humans. We speculate that a shift away from the ancestral pattern of brain development occurring in early Homo sapiens underlies brain reorganization and that the associated cognitive differences made this growth pattern a target for positive selection in modern humans."
"Mutations in CADPS2 have been implicated in autism (67), as have mutations in AUTS2 (68)."
"Our results also point to a number of genomic regions and genes as candidates for positive selection early in modern human history, for example, those involved in cognitive abilities and cranial morphology. We expect that further analyses of the Neandertal genome as well as the genomes of other archaic hominins will generate additional hypotheses and provide further insights into the origins and early history of present-day humans."
Don't worry about the formatting Slartibart....you did pretty well. As for the articles, it still appears that these are all speculative, and not based on a formal hypothesis and experimental testing. I think they make fine discussion here (and they are very interesting), but they fail as reliable sources for medical articles. We wouldn't include this speculation in the article because it's a bit of predicting the future. But in a year or 10, there could be confirmation of this hypothesis, and it could be included. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions15:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Orange-- those reports are all very speculative, and don't rise to the level of sourcing expected in a featured article that should be an overview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology just published a paper that supports the hypothesis that the confirmed neanderthal admixture event(s) provided cognitive variations that were subsequently selected for, sometimes causing a locus of deleterious recombinations in the genomes of children with parents who selected one another for those characteristics: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP09207238.pdf
"People on the autism spectrum are conceptualized here as ecologically competent individuals that could have been adept at learning and implementing hunting and gathering skills in the ancestral environment."
"Many of the behavioral and cognitive tendencies that autistic individuals exhibit are viewed here as adaptations that would have complemented a solitary lifestyle. For example, the obsessive, repetitive and systemizing tendencies in autism, which can be mistakenly applied toward activities such as block stacking today, may have been focused by hunger and thirst toward successful food procurement in the ancestral past. Both solitary mammals and autistic individuals are low on measures of gregariousness, socialization, direct gazing, eye contact, facial expression, facial recognition, emotional engagement, affiliative need and other social behaviors. The evolution of the neurological tendencies in solitary species that predispose them toward being introverted and reclusive may hold important clues for the evolution of the autism spectrum and the natural selection of autism genes."
"This article emphasizes that individuals on the autism spectrum may have only been partially solitary, that natural selection may have only favored subclinical autistic traits and that the most severe cases of autism may be due to assortative mating. "
"Unfortunately, the genetics, molecular biology and neuroscience of autism are still, relative to many other neurological disorders, shrouded with uncertainty due to their highly complex nature (O’Roak and State, 2008)."
"A portion of this complexity and uncertainty arises from the relatively large number of distinct susceptibility genes that have been identified, many of which can be completely absent even in pronounced autism (Freitag, 2007). This genetic heterogeneity may be responsible for the clinical heterogeneity..."
"The autism continuum could represent a remnant of genetic introgression that took place before humans were the lone species in our genus. Perhaps some of the genes for autism evolved not in our direct ancestral line but in a solitary subspecies which later merged genetically with our line of descent through gene flow."
"1. isolated pockets of humans can remain reproductively insulated for long enough to evolve discrepant ecological strategies; 2. such populations can quickly (less than 40,000 years in the South American and Asian pygmies; Cavalli-Sforza, 1986) develop features that vary markedly from the norm; 3. these traits can involve multiple genes at different loci; and 4. interbreeding can result in either continuous or polymorphic variation in subsequent generations. It is interesting to note that, as these indigenous people become assimilated into other gene pools, the genes for short stature will persist and may affect phenotypic variability in sporadic and unpredictable ways for a long time to come."
"Like other polygenic, continuous traits, the mutations responsible for autism could have been maintained by “environmental heterogeneity,” a form of balancing selection. In other words, the genes responsible for autism may have remained in our gene pool because as social-environmental conditions fluctuated in the past, discrepant genetic polymorphisms, or “multiple alternate alleles,” were favored."
Why hasn't this appeared in the article's content? Is there a good reason that just isn't being mentioned here, or is it because people will find it offensive? I don't think wikipedia has citation standards that go beyond a scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slartibartfastibast (talk • contribs)
Yes, it does---see WP:MEDRS. The basic issue is that on controversial medical topics, it is possible to find sources to support virtually anything a writer wants to say; so we try to impose a bit of order by sticking as far as possible to review articles published in highly reputable journals---reviews whose authors are expert enough to weigh conflicting sources of evidence appropriately. Let me also point out that this is a Featured Article, and also is one of the most heavily viewed articles on Wikipedia (averaging about 15,000 views per day), so it is worth making a particular effort to keep the content valid. Looie496 (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It shows 264 genes with 624 interactions (using the lenient settings in the screenshot)
PITX3 "is involved in lens formation during eye development."
SRD5A2 "catalyzes the conversion of the male sex hormone testosterone into the more potent androgen, dihydrotestosterone."
CADPS2 is already implicated in autism.
GABRA2 "is the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the mammalian brain"
BDNF "acts on certain neurons of the central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system, helping to support the survival of existing neurons, and encourage the growth and differentiation of new neurons and synapses."
ROBO1 "was implicated in communication disorder based on a Finnish pedigree with severe dyslexia. Analyses revealed a translocation had occurred disrupting ROBO1. Study of the phonological memory component of the language acquisition system suggests that ROBO1 polymorphisms are associated with functioning in this system."
MY01D codes for the tails of spermatozoa.
STK3 "presumably allows cells to resist unfavorable environmental conditions."
SND1 "plays an important role in miRNA function"
OTX1 "may play a role in brain and sensory organ development" is a "dyslexia susceptibility locus candidate gene" and "is important in neuronal cell development and differentiation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slartibartfastibast (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The HOXD family seems to have something to do with limb development.
FOXP1 "expression patterns in human fetal brain are strikingly similar to those in the songbird, including localization to subcortical structures that function in sensorimotor integration and the control of skilled, coordinated movement"
More on the Asperger syndrome and eating disorders connection
I have now been informed, by a clinical psychologist as of today (June 15 2011), that Janet Treasure is the psychologist who links Asperger syndrome to eating disorders. In fact, a quick Google search, typing in "Janet Treasure" and "Asperger syndrome" will uncover quite a few websites on this theme. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, websites aren't supported by WP:MEDRS, except under a narrow set of circumstances, like describing a drug, or establishing notability of an individual. But if you're discussing a clinical link, then it needs to be published. If there's a paper on it, please provide it, and we all can determine if we should include it. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions15:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but her name was already in the Times story linked above, so this doesn't really tell us anything new. —Soap—15:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the above comments. I saw this website:
and was relieved to see that it did cite sources. However, I was somewhat less happy to see that when I scrolled down to the list of refernces, the only publication by her was in the Times Online - hardly an academic source. I hope that some who is familiar with Treasure's work and can actually cite work she has had published in refereed, high citation academic journals in psychology can tidy things a little here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you are looking for scholarly sources, searching on Google Scholar is usually more productive than an ordinary Google search. She has many reputable publications on anorexia, and a number on its relations to autism, such as PMID 17937420 -- though probably the only one that is at MEDRS-level is PMID 18447964. Looie496 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
