New research by Simon Fraser University evolutionary biologist Bernard Crespi reinforces his theory that autism and schizophrenia are diametric or opposite conditions based on genes.
... "Our findings provide new insights into the 'genomic architecture' of these major human mental illnesses," says Crespi, who a year ago stunned the global scientific community with his theory suggesting that genes passed on from either parent can steer brain development in certain directions. ... Among their findings, data from studies of head and brain size "phenotypes" -the physical or biochemical characteristics of organisms as determined by genetics and the environment - show that autism is commonly associated with developmentally enhanced brain growth, while schizophrenia is characterized by reduced brain growth.
"Our findings provide new insights into the 'genomic architecture' of these major human mental illnesses," says Crespi, who a year ago stunned the global scientific community with his theory suggesting that genes passed on from either parent can steer brain development in certain directions.
...
Among their findings, data from studies of head and brain size "phenotypes" -the physical or biochemical characteristics of organisms as determined by genetics and the environment - show that autism is commonly associated with developmentally enhanced brain growth, while schizophrenia is characterized by reduced brain growth.
(I downloaded it sometime during '08 I suppose, attracted to the concept of a "social brain" which I considered an literary novelty apropos a body of research into cognitive development that has been published by psychologists since, oh, Freud. This construct or qualification of mental functions I find interesting because it reveals a persisting dichotomy or research biases among so-called cognitive scientists in hypothesizing primacy among mental pathologies, environmental (stimulants) or genetic (chemical). The findings, as enter public discourse, also contain moral and political values which bureaucrats lever into policy prescriptions. See for example Poor Children Likelier to Get Antipsychotics , NYT)
"Abstract: Autistic-spectrum conditions and psychotic-spectrum conditions (mainly schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression) represent two major suites of disorders of human cognition, affect and behavior that involve altered development and function of the social brain. We describe that a large set of phenotypic traits exhibit diametrically-opposite phenotypes in autistic-spectrum vs. psychotic-spectrum conditions, with a focus on schizophrenia. This suite of traits is inter-correlated, in that autism involves a general pattern of constrained overgrowth, whereas schizophrenia involves undergrowth. These disorders also exhibit diametric patterns for traits related to social brain development, including aspects of gaze, agency, social cognition, local vs. global processing, language and behavior. Social cognition is thus under-developed in autistic-spectrum conditions, and hyperdeveloped on the psychotic spectrum."
etc etc Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
"'People divide roughly, it seems to me, into two kinds, of rather a continuum is stretched between two extremes. There are people people and things people.' W.D. Hamilton (1996, Kyoto Prize lecture)
"1. Introduction
"We describe a new hypothesis that seeks to conceptually unify the analyses of psychosis and autism, two disorders of the human social brain (Burns 2004, 2006; McAlonan et al. 2005). The core of this hypothesis is that psychosis and autism represent two extremes on a cognitive spectrum with nomality at its center [descriptive stats SOP]. Social cognition is thus underdeveloped in autism, but hyperdeveloped to dysfunction in psychosis. We also suggest that these forms of deviation from normal social development [read, normative] in either direction are mediated in part by alterations in developmental and metabolic systems affected by genomic imprinting, notably via effects of genes that are imprinted in the brain and in the placenta [ht mercury birthers] (Tycko & Morison 2002; Davies et al. 2005)."
emphasis added, etc etc Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
I'm not indicting the whole field, but all too often these studies get picked-up, used, and broadcast by bigots - of one variety or another - to feed their paranoia, neuroses, or Domination Fixation.
By the by, I largely owe my sensitivity to normal-normative sleight o' hand to one reading, if you can believe it, of Shelby Hunt, Foundations of Marketing Theory. Let me see... marginalia ... ah:
Is the positive/normative dichotomy unnecessary? Do normative statements play a role in scientific explanation? To evaluate these questions, we must refer to the meaning of positive statements versus normative statements. Recall that the positive/normative dichotomy provides categories based on whether the focus of the analysis is primarily descriptive or prescriptive. Positive marketing [read, distribution or logistical system] adopts the perspective of attempting to describe, explain, predict, and understand the marketing activities, process, and phenomena [read, metaphysical] that actually exist. This perspective examines what is. In contrast, normative marketing adopts the perspective of attempting to prescribe [read, remediate] what marketing organizations and individuals ought to do or what kinds of marketing systems a society ought to have. That is, this perspective examines what ought to be and what organizations and individuals ought to do Thus, one signal (but not the only one) of a normative statement is the extence of an ought or should or some similar term.
The telelogical certainty of these remarks left a profound impression on my comprehension of the possibilities and limitations (calculus) of organizational strategy. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Fancy that. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
;-)
The interactions of environment - writ large - and brain chemistry - writ large - are very much a topic of research. The Behavior Genetics people face a major problem separating the two for analytical purposes. My opinion is the two are so intimately connected it is impossible to achieve a valid Categorical distinction. For example, that Danish study on schizophrenia showed the highest level of children developing the dysfunction was when they had a genetic disposition for it (9%) AND there was an environmental (parental) exhibition of the dysfunction (16%.)
Enculturation (Environment) studies of African American and European Americans show the WORST possible outcomes of Public Policy stem from policy and decision makers being uninformed by the Body/Mind Unity and an over-reliance on - let me put it - "tenuous" conclusions from Behavioral Genetic (BG) reseach. The same happens with BG Gender Differences studies as applied to educational policies and practices for girls, notably in regards to mathematical education.
It's possible to go one step further and question a definition of "normal" - aka, that which no one is - based on Information derived from the extremes. Schizophrenia is a disabling disease. Those who are schizoid have some of the Attributes and Properties of schizophrenia but are typically high functioning with regard to cognition, social intelligence, and RW skills. It can be stated the "male" brain has a tendenz for schizoid because it is a "male" brain plus Environmental influences that support "male" brain behavior, including but not limited to, "male-as-gender" socialization. It is here that it is possible to really study, gain knowledge, for informing Public Policy. With schizophrenics about the only intervention is: drugs or, at worst, institutionalization. With schizoids there are Public Options (that may be) available for those at or approaching dysfunction.
But we don't know because most of the research is directed at the extremes.
Yeah, except that
An extension, the extreme male brain theory, hypothesizes that autism is an extreme case of the male brain, defined psychometrically as individuals in whom systemizing is better than empathizing; this extension is controversial, as many studies contradict the idea that baby boys and girls respond differently to people and objects.
The same is applicable across all levels of Environment and Environmental influences.
Toss in Biology plus Environment, the division into narrow fields, disciplines, and sub-disciplies and the whole thing gets squishy.
Extreme "male brain" theories are, let me put it, wrong headed. We don't know enough to make those kind of conclusions. People study them because they limit the scope of the investigation. I concede there is a utility there, gotta draw the line somewhere, but to then recursively wander back to a gross generalization of the entire subject population is more than a bit intellectually pretentious.
We've been here before with the Social Darwinism, eugenics and ethnographic movements of the 1880-1945s. It was a disaster, from both scientific and humanitarian considerations. Yet there was useful work: clinical therapies for Hypothermia and deep insights into the epidemiology of Sexual Diseases, to name two, that resulted. But at what a cost!
And, too, there are some personal experiences, that I don't need to get into, driving my intellectual position. (If ya remember what I'm referencing. ;-)
So when we start talking about tendencies that's ALL we're talking about. And we're talking low-order tendencies, to boot, spread across the entire test or subject population.
