> By selecting for intelligence, we incidentally acquire a problem. That is directly at odds with the analysis in the Grove et al. paper; the genetic basis of

> By selecting for intelligence, we incidentally acquire a problem. That is directly at odds with the analysis in the Grove et al. paper; the genetic basis of increased educational attainment is distinct from that associated with 'severe' autism. I think this is a case of wanting to see patterns that aren't necessarily there; we'd like to see a nice even spectrum of behavior, with undesirable extremes at the ends. It's a nice reductive interpretation of complicated data. The problem is that it doesn't seem to fit. At least so far; genomic studies are very useful, especially as a starting point, but ultimately mechanistic explanations that generate testable genetic hypotheses are the gold standard for biology. And for good reason. Still, given that what evidence exists does suggest a different framework, I'd be very hesitant to conclude that there is a trade-off.