4 ms·
First up, it'll help me to verify your position regarding a correlation between high-IQ and autism symptoms. In my searching I found this 2018 tweet that indic
by tomhoward 7y ago
First up, it'll help me to verify your position regarding a correlation between high-IQ and autism symptoms.
In my searching I found this 2018 tweet that indicates you accept it: https://twitter.com/gwern/status/1011605899469783042 https://twitter.com/gwern/status/1011605899469783042
Do you still stand by that position?
That aside, to correct the record:
- Yes, of course I know about the hygiene hypothesis and have done for decades, since well before I developed an interest in the field. And yes, I've heard about these kinds of theories about myopia. But, setting aside that plausible alternative hypotheses are easily found, what I was asking for something less hand-wavy than "probably" to explain away the finding.
- I haven't claimed, and have never believed, that there is a negative correlation between IQ/cognitive ability and physiological health. A positive correlation within the normal range of both is to be expected, and is central to my understanding and experimentation.
- I find the study and other article I shared moderately useful, not because of anything they prove - of course they don't conclusively prove anything - but for what they suggest, and for they way they align with what we see in nature: that extreme specialisation on one dimension is generally related to or co-existent with weaknesses or impairments in other dimensions.
Such a specialisation is unlikely to enhance overall life outcomes or evolutionary fitness, which is exactly what we see in society, where other aptitudes like social skills, leadership abilities and physical/physiological qualities are vitally important.
For what it's worth, I note in your writings, your mentions of the effects on IQ of lead and iodine, both of which are very much part of my understanding of the topic, so it seems we're not completely out of sync.
- gwern 7y ago> Do you still stand by that position? I stand by that and what I say in my next tweet about why I don't believe those rgs mean what people think they mean, which you apparently did not bother to read while trawling through my tweets. > But, setting aside that plausible alternative hypotheses are easily found, what I was asking for something less hand-wavy than "probably" to explain away the finding. There is lots of good evidence for both hygiene and myopia. They do not require dismissing an entire century of research based on a single completely wacky sample which is internally insane and has guaranteed bias due to double self-selection effects. One man's modus ponens... https://www.gwern.net/Modus https://www.gwern.net/Modus