Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Does Diversity Cause Autism?

What's going on?

I was always intrigued by Bowery's thoughts on autism.  If I remember correctly, he found some interesting correlations between autism incidence and the presence of certain population groups living together, particularly South Asians and northern groups like Finns.  His theory - again, if my memory fails, I apologize - was, I believe, based on parasites carried by South Asian immigrants to which groups like Finns (being "farther from human origins") were more sensitive to.

There were some productive discussions at Majority Rights on this topic.  I proposed a different mechanism: that certain groups that evolved more in isolation (such as Finns) are more sensitive in the amygdala to exposure to the alien phenotypes of varied racial groups.  Thus, the developing brains of young (mostly male) children were being damaged by being "shocked" through exposure to alien phenotypes.  I conjectured that South Asians were particularly damaging in this regard because their "intermediate" phenotype - dark-skinned but with some Caucasian features but with some facial differences as well - caused more "confusion" to the "race recognition software" of young children than would more extreme, easily distinguished, racial types (e.g., comparing Danes, Chinamen, and Nigerians).

Of course, the "official" explanation for most of the increase is simply "better diagnosis." I'm not sure about that. Should we just give up on the idea of a large, real rate increase?  Some cite "inbreeding" of "high-IQ" people - which I think is just thinly veiled propaganda for miscegenation and dysgenics.  Assortative mating need not necessarily lead to autism.  Then we have the finding, cited in the links in the linked article above, which suggest that autism rates for Black and Hispanic children (mostly male) are rising as well.

Let's assume the last finding is correct.  That would suggest that the problem may be broader than just for susceptible groups like Finns, and may not be simply due to "intermediate" groups like South Asians.  And Blacks and Hispanics are hardly groups one associates with "assortative mating" for intelligence.  American Blacks are admixed and Hispanics are highly admixed, so there goes the "inbreeding" theory as well.

I would suggest then that the autism increase is real, and that it is a general effect of multiculturalism. I suggest that male brains, being more tuned to recognizing and opposing foreign male incursions, are being damaged during development through exposure to so many different racial types. Multiracialism causes autism in my theory, and this holds for all racial groups.  Thus, rates for Blacks and Hispanics are increasing due to "desegregation" and the increased infiltration of these groups into previously White communities (or Hispanics moving into Black areas), as well as the general increase in diversity in urban areas (where many Blacks and Hispanics live) due to Asian immigration, etc.

One would expect to find, for any group, higher rates of autism in areas where there is more diversity, comparing matched populations (i.e., a proper control group not exposed to [as much] diversity).  Has autism in Europe been increasing with immigration?  Is there a generalized correlation between diversity and autism?  Note that the pathogen load theory is also consistent with increased human diversity, although the "brain shock" theory is more general for both direct and indirect forms of diversity (see below).

This theory may be completely wrong and if proven wrong, that's fine.  But it should at least be carefully considered and not immediately dismissed as "racist."  And any analysis of the "brain shock" theory needs to be fair and without political bias.  In addition, it must consider not only direct diversity (direct exposure to various human types) but indirect as well (exposure to diverse human images in television, movies, Internet, books, etc.).  After all, the developing human brain will react to the images regardless of how they are presented, although it is possible (albeit not proven) that repeated direct contact would have the greatest effect.