I appreciate the thoughtfulness and research going into this piece. I have what used to be called Asperger's (now just part of the autistic spectrum) and as a formally "gifted" kid myself, and I think way too much pressure is being put on kids who happen to perform really well in a niche subset of academic tasks at the expense of their emotional needs. I think this is particularly true in the US where genius is fetishized. I don't think trauma causes autism (twin studies comparing the concordance fraternal and identical twins with autism suggest the causes are mostly genetic) however it can make the severity autistic symptoms much much worse (identical twin studies show the severity of symptoms can differ widely). And I see huge differences between kids whose parents accept their condition and try to raise them in a more balanced way, versus the parents who hyperfocus on their kids' gifts and are in denial that they have any struggles.
I will say that The Diametric Mind theory of autism has never sat right with me. Perhaps this is because me and other Asperger's people I know love the connection between the left and right sides of the brain, love the connection between spirituality and science, or music and math, or have things like synesthesia where they experience words and numbers with colors/emotions. The Connectivity Theory of autism is a competing theory with The Diametric Mind theory, which that autists have different patterns of connectivity in the brain compared with allistics, with some having less connection between left and right hemispheres, but others having more. Autism is truly heterogeneous as you highlighted, and so that might explain why The Diametric Mind theory summarizes a subset of cases but not others. Nevertheless, I can totally agree that our society over-prioritizes the mechanistic over mentalistic to our detriment!
A few additional notes on the problems with twin studies and autism:
(1) There is a higher incidence of autism diagnoses in multiple births than in single births (i.e. twins and triplets are more likely to be autistic than solo birth children). This points to prenatal factors, the mother's body struggling to provide enough for both babies, and to the co-morbid risk of premature birth (multiple births are more likely to be premature, premies are more likely to be autistic). NICU factors play a role here; if you've ever spent some time in a NICU (I had a four day stay with my daughter, it sucked) it's obvious that it would be very traumatic for the babies and adversely affect mother-infant attachment.
(2) Identical twins are at a higher risk for problems in general than fraternal twins because things are more likely to go wrong when the embryo divides. Fraternal twins run in families, so presumably there would be some family genes buffering against complications, but identical twins are more of a random thing.
(3) In adoption studies with twins, you're looking at children developing in a womb environment where the mother is pregnant under stressful circumstances and doesn't want to keep the children. Earlier theories about autism included that rejection by the mother while the child is in the womb increases risk.
Again, not claiming genes aren't involved, but I think conclusions drawn from twin studies tend to be overblown.
Thank you for your comment! Honestly, this essay could have easily been 3x the length, I left so much out, including that I'm with you re Badcock's Diametric Model ... I don't think EITHER him or Iain McGilchrist (hemispheres) are entirely correct, but the overlap in their observations interests me. (This is a little clearer in the two-part essay "The Dangers of Reading Too Much").
The diametric model doesn't have an accurate description of schizophrenia and fails to account for why schizophrenia and autism are highly co-morbid (Badcock says this is indicative of genius—the child is autistic and then the adult is more schizophrenic—but this still feels a little off to me). Spiritual interests tend to kick in in adulthood for most people too.
And Iain McGilchrist fails to explain why so many autistic people have RIGHT HEMISPHERE associated "savant" or "spiky" skills (e.g. spatial skills/math, music).
I think the latter can be reconciled by inferring that autistic people have ABNORMAL right hemisphere brain development, over-development in some areas, unique in each case (e.g. spatial skills, music, connection to animals) and under-development in others (e.g. non-verbal communication, connection to others, connection to one's own body, and in many cases connection to nature—as I include an addiction to or preference for processed foods under this category).
And, of course, more localized connection—the "connectivity theory" seems kind of vague to me, I mean, yes, obviously there's different connectivity, but why and why the variation? As well, "allistic" people will have a wide range of connectivity differences too. All brains are unique ... and there's considerable variation between cultural groups (as well as average differences between males and females within groups).
I don't think trauma/neglect can cause autism *on its own*; I guess I don't see much distinction between something that can make autism *worse* versus being a contributing factor, because I sincerely doubt *most* children diagnosed with it are born with it (I think some are, but primarily due to factors in prenatal development, epigenetics not genes). I think in every case there are other factors involved—the skyrocketing rates and increased severity of cases indicates that environmental factors are playing the largest role. However, I think genes for *sensitivity* and ones that affect nutrients (e.g. MTHFR) dramatically increase vulnerability. I think in all "gifted" kid cases there's genes for sensitivity involved, and those make us more vulnerable to abuse/neglect, to toxins, and to drugs (including, most notably, refined sugar).
Badcock also offers an explanation as to how mothers could pass Aspergers on to their offspring (in particular males) through the X chromosome through inactivation imprints that fail to reset, a process called "lingering Lyonization".
But regarding trauma *causing* autism, keep in mind I'm referring to autism diagnoses (and self-diagnoses) here. I don't think what's getting labelled as "autism" is one condition. I think there's a very reasonable argument that many traumatized people are getting diagnosed with "autism" when "complex PTSD" would be more accurate and appropriate. But it's a huge mess to tease apart, because in basically every case where a child is "coldly" parented, you're going to have other risk factors (e.g. a diet higher in processed convenience foods). And higher levels of stress negatively affect the gut microbiome and the body's ability to detox, which would contribute (but not cause by itself) to the higher levels of heavy metal build-up seen in autism.
The problem I have with twin studies is that twins shares a womb, and in the case of adoption studies, the significant trauma of adoption. I'm skeptical of them. And regarding autism running in families, the issue is so do environments, diets, and parenting styles. But as I think autism is more than one condition, I also think there's a good chance that a subset of diagnoses, especially at the "Aspergers" end of things, are largely epigenetic, a result of generations of high mechanism, high cognitive / low nurture, low embodied families (this is clearer in the "Dangers of Reading Too Much" essays).
Gah. It's a giant mess of information. I think the safest approach is to treat each case of "autism" as unique; look for individual causal factors, and come up with an individual approach to improve quality of life.
Will throw it out there that magic mushrooms did WONDERS for me; I especially recommend them if you have disordered or restricted/picky eating / ARFID as a co-morbidity. A high dose of mushrooms seems to be able to fix that.
Many other "autism" traits are caused or exacerbated by nutritional deficiencies. So, for example, if you struggle to eat vegetables, you might have a lutein deficiency, which will cause light sensitivity. Sound sensitivity can be caused by magnesium and B6 deficiencies. Difficulty sleeping is usually related to Vitamin D and magnesium. Refined sugar, caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine all deplete various nutrients, as do many medications, including birth control pills. Eating a lot of processed foods also means a higher glyphosate exposure, and that screws up folate levels (B9), among other things.
Hi and thank you for your really detailed response. I appreciate that you have actually read extensively about autism and that your theories are based on careful engagement with the science. A lot of people writing about this topic kind of have these hot takes on it without ever doing a basic lit review and I find it frustrating. Thank you for your work and your sincere dedication to understanding this complex topic.
I am talking about twin studies with non-adopted kids, comparing fraternal vs. identical twins raised by the same parents. I think your second point only applies in this situation, and it’s an interesting one! However, to me that would point to a difference in in utero environmental factors versus differences in parenting environmental factors. It is believed that environmental factors due absolutely play a causal role in autism, but it would only make sense if they happened very early on because in order for autism to be correctly diagnosed, symptoms have to start appearing in the early developmental period.
One of the reasons the twin studies are interesting to me is that I have a pair of fraternal twins in my family (not adopted, same womb) and one twin has autism (level I) and the other doesn’t. The one who does started showing some symptoms as an infant and then other symptoms appeared around age two which is when most autistic symptoms appear.
However, I do absolutely agree that trauma later in life can impact the way autistic symptoms express themselves, and bring out more of the negative ones. This is true in ADHD as well. You make a good point in differentiating how autism presents (as differences in behavior) versus the neurological difference that may (or may not in some causes) cause those behaviors. I also suspect that not all cases of adult diagnosed ADHD are actually caused by the same thing, and I think some cases of self-diagnosed autism are probably people mislabeling themselves. Trauma is probably a huge reason. But I also know autistics who were told that their symptoms were just due to trauma, and this turned out not to be the case.
I appreciate the good will in your advice but I have found ways to manage drug free and have found a nutrition, exercise, and other wellness practices that work for me. I am okay with being autistic and not trying to fix it, but rather manage the negative sides. I will never do psychedelics because meditation and spiritual ritual have psychadelic-like effects on me, and I suspect I’m already too open and my brain is already too far off in the spirtual-ecological-everything-is-connected direction, and it’s more useful for me to engaged in grounded, mechanistic type work to keep the my woo-woo side in check :) I do have a lot of friends who are into psychedelics though, and I fit in more easily in communities that use them and think that they’re clearly beneficial for many, and glad they’re becoming less stigmatized and more widely available! I just don’t think they should be recommended for everyone.
Thanks for your thoughtful engagement and I look forward to subscribing and following your work.
Oh, yes, I suspect ADHD is probably more environmental/trauma-based than autism, in general. (Though still related to those pesky sensitivity genes).
Re psychedelics. I avoided them for ages for the same reason as you, but my health got bad enough I was willing to try anything, and they really helped me. I did get way too woo-woo-y for a while, talking in metaphors and making predictions like some sort of old-school prophetess, but once I settled down I was significantly healthier, and most of the weird stuff I said turned out to have some validity behind it (downloaded a bunch of excellent advice on avoiding Covid lol). But I don't think anyone should take them if they're afraid of them, and the main benefits for me were gut healing, curing my chronic migraines, putting me more in touch with spirituality, and with my own body / instincts, and convincing me to stop eating refined sugar and drinking alcohol. It sounds like you already have several practices for a healthy diet, spirituality, and physical connection, and that you did that without any medicine is admirable :-) (And I wasn't trying to suggest mushrooms will "cure" autism, more help with the negative symptoms, depending on what they are! I also realize that since autism is so multifactorial that no treatment will benefit everyone).
I haven’t finished reading this yet, I like to read all the listed sources while I am reading the central piece, so it takes me a bit more time. But great stuff so far and a very well argued case!
On McGilchrist’s hemisphere lateralization theory, I think that the key point that he captures, and other dichotomous theories on cognition miss out on, is that the two hemispheres differ in the “how” more than they differ in the “what”. This means that for the small scale and short term thinking the right hemisphere has a major handicap against the left. But the right hemisphere is excellent at aggregating and synthesizing and becomes unbeatable at long term and more complex kinds of thinking. This maps perfectly onto the kind of precocious giftedness that wears off when more hemisphere balanced people eventually catch up and overtake the left hemisphere focused ones.
The role of pubertal hormones in brain development, from prenatal to puberty is fascinating. Scary, in the hands of diabolical scientists.
“Cold parenting” reminded me of a chapter from a book called The Boy Who was Raised as a Dog. It is an autobiography from one of the first child trauma psychologists (he made headlines when he was called into the siege at Waco, TX).
He was called into study a teenage boy who raped and murdered a pubescent girl in cold blood. The boy appeared to be a total sociopath, with zero empathy. The strange thing was, his parents were such nice, simple people. His mother was a bit retarded, but their firstborn son had turned out just fine.
When he interviewed the family, he learned that the first born son had been raised largely by extended family. However, the family had moved into a high rise apartment and lost that support by the time the second baby came.
Bc the mother had sensory issues, she couldn’t stand a crying baby. Whenever the crying baby caused her to freak out, the well-meaning but simple minded husband took her out on a walk, and left the crying baby in the crib.
The boy who grew up to be a cold-hearted killer received little to no empathy as an infant, not because his parents were evil, but because they were pushed beyond their ability to meet his needs living in urban poverty without access to extended family.
Front to cover, the book was packed with stories that highlight the nature of childhood trauma, the possibility of recovery, and sadly the social failure of the modern world.
That's fascinating! Yes, I think extended family is so critical to healthy development. I can see it in my experience of motherhood -- I was supported to be able to stay home and work very part-time (the odd contract here and there), my husband's mother lives with us, and his father and step-mother are close by and very helpful. My mother and step-father live five minutes away and help out, my dad and his girlfriend are also close by, and most of my extended family (my mom was adopted so both adoptive and biological) live in the same province as us. So it was relatively easy for me to be a decent mother, because I have a supportive husband, I didn't have to go back to work, and grandparents, aunts, cousins, and siblings have all helped us out at various points. I also quickly made friends with other parents when we moved to a new neighbourhood and even now, I'm pregnant and exhausted and don't have a lot of energy for my daughter, but another mom comes over frequently with her son and voila I can be useless and my daughter is still happy. I can't imagine having to be a parent on my own, or even with just my husband. I think a lot of people are raising children in very unnatural circumstances. Being a mother is incredibly hard, especially when you have an infant and are recovering from birth. I imagine the biggest predictor of childhood outcomes would be the amount of support mom gets.
I was talking to a single mom at a local parent-toddler hangout and she admitted to me that she worries about her child's language development because she talks so much less when she's alone with her kid. I was the same way when my daughter was a baby ... I just didn't talk that much, because, you know, babies can't carry a conversation, so it's hard. If I didn't have plans to see other adults I knew, I'd take her out on walks and start conversations with other parents and nannies I ran into. We need other people!
Good article overall! For point #6 on cold parenting, when I read how you described cold parenting it sounded like a natural way for an autistic parent to parent their child. This makes me think there is correlation, but only because there is a genetic link that leads autistic parents to have autistic children.
Best way to test this out would be twin studies, but it might be hard to get a large enough one to identify causes of autism.
Yeah ... I think it's epigenetic. Parents high in autistic traits are more likely to pass on genes that increase the risk of autism *and* are more likely to parent their children in such a way that steers them toward autistic development (and they themselves were most likely parented in a way that contributed to their autism). Hans Asperger noted in his paper that many of the mothers in particular of his autistic patients seemed high in autistic traits themselves.
"While we have never met a girl with the fully fledged picture of autism, we have, however, seen several mothers of autistic children whose behaviour had decidedly autistic features. It is difficult to explain this observation. It may be that autistic traits in the female become evident only after puberty. We just do not know.” (Hans Asperger, 1944)
The Drew family in this story is an interesting example of an autistic father who did a lot of research, including reading accounts of children who blame their difficult childhoods on their parents' autism, and is trying to consciously parent in a non-cold way ... at the time of the story, his daughter showed no signs of autism:
Yes, I think this is completely true. I think the original “refrigerator mother” theory came from observation of autistic traits in the parents and interpreting them as a developmental cause of the child’s autism rather than realizing that they were observing the same traits in the parents that had been genetically passed to the child.
Really glad I came across your blog. I am a full-time parent to my autistic & gifted 16 year old son. Since he began puberty 3 years ago, he has developed mental-health related comorbidities that necessitate I care for him full-time. Reading this I feel a little less alone, a little more hopeful that part of what he’s going through is puberty related, and definitely understanding more about 2e! Thank you so much for all your research
You neglected to mention the single greatest contributor to male GD—autogynephilia. AGP is strongly correlated with autism, which is most likely the chief reason why so many dysphoric young men are gifted. (Also while I’m not wholly convinced of the “extreme male brain” theory, the fact that autism correlates with non-heterosexuality in males does not on its own disprove the theory, since most non-heterosexual behavior in autistic males stems from AGP.)
That said, I think the factors you have listed certainly contribute, especially for females.
The essay was already very long and I don't want to introduce a complicated and controversial topic such as autogynephilia without being able to do it justice. I hope you understand.
Woah. It's rather disturbing how uncannily precise this is as a summary of my life.
Absurdly early cognitive skills - check (poetry and multiplication at age 3)
Mother with narcissistic tendencies - check
Expectations of genius accomplishment, pushed to skipped grades, etc - check
Isolation and bullying throughout school - check
Being essentially raised by, or peered with adult outsiders - check (my family and social connections in childhood and adolescence was de facto an intellectual online discussion forum)
Deviant sexuality - check (not trans but became a PUA and later underground sex guru, had ruminations of being wretched and disgusting unless my "performance" as far as sex quantity/quality/variety, etc was "adequate" for most of my adult life, until recovery last year) (and a check - plus for the recovery being psychedelic assisted)
Sensitivity to criticism, difficulty following through with challenging tasks later in life - check
Atypical right brained interest - check (playing exotically designed / extended range basses and guitars)
Extensive challenges with relationships, including professional - check
Interestingly, I am trying and have a decent chance of success of achieving tenure in (my current) dream job for someone in my position, an academic research mathematician with no teaching and service duties. Perhaps this essay presents a nice way to have a non-narcissistic way to present my intended case: suggest a modest basic income with a performance-based high tail. That way if I'm just a wacko I'm still content and they don't waste too much resources, and the degree to which I'm more than just a wacko and I could create outstanding intellectual contributions to make the world a better place (and I am directing research towards prosocial ends as much as I can, energy efficiency, health science, etc) is incentivized, and thus the expectation of contribution to the world even under (the non narcissistic prior of) low probability of true "genius" is still maximized :)
(And my data driven prior has not changed from my prior, I had top pub/citations in my CS dept for a couple years in a row but recently one of my PIs informes me that I am a stupid underperformer, so I truly have no idea, it's somewhere in between with a bias towards just being a wacko, is my current understanding)
(My apologies if the terminology is unfamiliar, I came to your substack from statistical sociologists so assumed you were similar)
I'm glad you have a shot at the dream career! Not technically a "math" book, but a book about math -- have you read Weapons of Math Destruction? Sounds like it might be up your alley (albeit probably a little simplistic since it's written for lay readers).
Reminds me of some of the things I'd been looking at on substack. You see I recently was a part of a research project I only mid way realized was associated firmly with an unethical ideology (fortunately I left that project without cancellation incident it seems). So I started to read up on the antrhopology of the intelligentsia and came across this article.
It's important to have civic duty as a researcher, as distrust of quantification can be very problematic. For instance when they stopped using SATs for admission criteria in the US all the American professors complained about the quality of the students. Indeed it even made disparities worse: exceptionally high SAT scores in an area with generally low scores were a reliable way to rescue intelligent kids from rough neighborhoods. Whereas upper middle class white kids could afford tutoring on and were culturally better aligned to do well on essays and interviews.
I'm a bit cynical, and suspect it was less a distrust of quantification that turned elites against the SAT, and more that a smart kid without any advantages will typically score higher than an advantaged kid without smarts. They want college admissions to be based on things money can buy.
Interesting article, but it has some issues. If you’ll look closely, the study finding a correlation between negative mental health outcomes (including autism) and outlier high IQ relies on a sample of MENSA members. In fact, most studies which find such a result do, while studies that don’t rely on MENSA tend to find positive mental health outcomes for the highly intelligent. It is most likely that MENSAns are just a neurotic group, divorced from their high IQ (which Cremieux Recueil suggests is actually not as high as they imagine https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/mensa-the-above-average-iq-society ).
In fact, autism is strongly associated with clinical mental retardation, with around half of all diagnosed autists being below two standard deviations in IQ. Yes, this is skewed by the severely autistic, but I am yet to see evidence of some sort of “parabolic” relationship between autism severity and IQ. There may be a bit more high functioning autists among the intelligent because smart men tend to have children later in life, and paternal age is a major corollary with Autism.
ADHD has shown either no effect or a negative effect on intelligence in studies investigating the relationship. Substance abuse and going Trans do seem to have some relation with high intelligence. Although, some intelligence researchers like Kirkegaard have suggested that this is because being a gender dysphoriac or an autogynephiliac requires a degree of abstract reasoning and creativity that the unintelligent do not have
I believe the reason a lot of gifted kids burn out is quite simple: IQ tests become more heritable with age. When you’re a child, environment has a bigger effect, but it regresses to what one would expect based on parent IQ scores as they age. Kids who tried really hard in school, whose parents made them do lots of reading and writing, may have seen inaccurate elevated scores on childhood IQ tests, and also gotten burnout from this lifestyle. Most gifted programs are not super strict. If you want to see what the actual gifteds — the genetic freaks — are up to, you’ll have to pick a stronger threshold than what schools are doing. I did a bit of research on my old school (where I was labeled intellectually gifted, if I recall correctly) and being in the IG category only required scoring a 125 in at least one of the three subcategories. I’m assuming this is somewhat analogous in distribution to an actual IQ test, so this is not a terrible difficult bridge to conquer especially since higher IQ people’s subtest scores correlate less than low IQ people. Plenty of 115, 110 IQ kids were probably labeled gifteds.
I recall recently reading a study on actual gifted kids, as in real freakishly smart kids, who averaged an IQ in the 150s. It’s an old study, albeit, but most of them ended up with PhDs or became doctors or lawyers.
I think we're mostly on the same page ... I realize autism is more associated with lower IQ, I'm really only talking about what used to be called "Aspergers" here. There was a study that found there are four distinct subtypes of autism, two with above-average verbal IQs, one with average verbal IQ, and one with below-average. This article only applies to the above-average verbal IQ groups. I don't think autism is one condition, it's more an umbrella term -- which makes it difficult to discuss. And it's multifactorial, with lots of different causes, and I doubt any one case only has one cause or any one cause applies to all cases.
Yes, I think many / most kids who are designated "gifted" are as you describe ... kids who were pushed hard academically (or extreme try-hards) and this leads to the burn-out and brain differences from stress and the various parts of normal childhood development they missed out on while spending all their time with their noses in books (etc). These strategies only take them so far. At least part of the draw to obtaining an autism/ADHD diagnosis later in life and/or coming out as trans or non-binary is the narrative that comes with it, which can explain why success didn't come as easily to them as they expected.
There does seem to be more going on with the trans / autism / high IQ overlap than I have here. If you're interested, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this essay, which looks at another potential factor ...
First of all, I don't think most kids (in the U.S) whose parents/teachers classified them as "gifted" actually are/were. They were just told how smart they were their entire lives and internalized that they were the "best," whether or not that was actually true. And now with every discomfort or problem being considered a disorder, it's natural that someone who was once called "gifted" during our generation is now blaming that on whatever issue they now have (transgenderism, ADHD, anxiety, etc.). In short: this is the result of some really bad parenting of adults who never grew out of their "I'm special" phase.
That's definitely a big part of it! The other big part is that the talents that classify a child as "gifted" don't (necessarily) translate to original, creative thought in adulthood. I don't think it's a good idea to push precocity on children or to classify them as "gifted". I suspect this is a big reason for the antisemitism among many elite college students as well -- they were "gifted" as children, enough to get the grades and test scores for a "good" school, but the precocity starts to wear off as they enter adulthood, and it becomes clear that they aren't destined for the success they feel entitled to and were told to expect. A group (like the Jews) that disproportionately produces high achievers (in adulthood) is a natural target, especially if one buys into the leftist belief that all differences between groups are a result of some sort of oppressor / oppressed dynamic. I do actually think that most of these young people are on the autism spectrum, broadly speaking, and Hans Asperger was really on to something when he pointed out that intelligence testing gives a "false impression" of the intelligence of autistic people.
“Factors related to “Big Pharma” and “Big Food” are probably playing a much larger role in the skyrocketing rates of developmental disorders and mental health problems than daycare use or parenting.”
I was waiting to see if you got here. And that you did lends tremendous credence to the coherence of your thoughts on this subject. Excellent and informative read, thank you 🙏🏻
Oof, it's a big knot but better to focus on one or two threads at a time. I've written other essays that dig into the nutritional and pharmaceutical factors more, but I swear to god there's like three thousand rabbit holes to jump down here. I started poking at synthetic nutrients (in particular folic acid) and ended up with something like 12,000 words over two posts.
I think it’s incredibly challenging to put the pieces in their relatively correct places. As someone who grew up in a narcissistically abusive household and exhibited symptoms of CPTSD well into my 30’s, I can say the healing process required a focus on every layer (body, mind, soul), and I couldn’t point to one which was more important than the other. One of the biggest challenges was to only go so far down the rabbit-hole as was necessary because so many different paths needed to be explored even to have a chance at healing. The material layer was easiest to focus on due to hyper-rationality, while the deeper soul level required external events to breakdown the psyche and force the suppressed rage to the surface.
I grew up under communism, where nobody was elevated as gifted. It worked well. In retrospect, I see this as one of the damaging trends in American education .Let kids be kids! There will be plenty of time in their lives for being sorted and pushed and prodded, when they grow up. :-)
Yes, I don't think it's psychologically healthy for kids to be told that they are "gifted" or have a high IQ or whatever. But at the same time, I was bored out of my mind in grade school. I'm not sure what the solution is.
Actually, I would not have minded school if my parents had told me "just do what you have to do, enjoy your friends and the good teachers, and don't worry about the rest. Learning on your own is where it's at." :-) And let me play hooky often.
IQ becomes interesting later in life, one of many things, kinda like Briggs Myers. Using it to sort kids is appalling.
So, I’m a late-diagnosed (I received my diagnosis in my early 40s) autistic (I would have been diagnosed with Asperger’s had my diagnosis come about a decade earlier) woman with one autistic kid (daughter) and one allistic (non-autistic) kid (boy, ten years older). I parented them very similarly (what used to be called attachment parenting). My daughter showed signs of autism from a very young age. My son didn’t (he was a bright little kid and maybe might have been termed ‘gifted’ if such labels were common here? I’m not sure).
We didn’t have ‘gifted’ labels where and when I grew up (Northern England, born late 70s) but I was always in the ‘top set’ where streaming applied. I did well academically but not as well as people thought I would. I was bullied horrifically. I rarely felt loved or liked by most adults — I was *admired* more, which is an interesting state! I was parented VERY strictly in some ways (‘spare the rod — spoil the child’) and much less so in others (typical 1980s free range childhood).
If one thinks of gender as a sort of spectrum from male to female (I’m not sure I do but for illustrative purposes let’s go with it) I’m probably just over the half way line into female. I find dresses more comfy than trousers I suppose, and I am a mum, and feel absolutely no discomfort with that label, or being called a woman.
I do wonder, were I a teen today instead of approaching 50, if I might be persuaded to join the ranks of the ‘non-binary’? I’m not sure — but I definitely wouldn’t want to be male, and have never ‘felt’ male, despite having quite a few stereotypical masculine traits.
I really appreciate the research and the effort to remain even-handed/neutral. Though personally, I found the overall tone felt heavily like one of concern — and whilst I do agree there are definitely things about which one ought to be concerned, there is definitely some joy in receiving an autism diagnosis too, though I think some people (especially those who are very online) see that as the end of the process, whereas for others it’s more like a starting point; I find the autism label only so useful now and have moved on from the point where it felt like it was engraved through me like a stick of Blackpool rock.
Thanks for sharing! You might find this essay interesting as well -- it examines a possible link between genetic and dietary factors in autism. (The genes would also impact how kids respond to nurture and other environmental factors so it's a bit complicated).
Yes, I'm familiar with her work, though I haven't read the actual books! It makes a lot of sense to me. I'm very suspicious of lab-made nutrients and foods, stuff that's highly processed etc. I breastfed my first child and intend to do so with my second (due soon) ... not easy but worth it. In particular I've been grateful that I breastfeed when my kid has gotten sick or hurt, because it almost always helps.
I breastfed both of mine way past infancy and became a peer supporter for a time, though my difficulties in picking up hints and non-spoken messages led to me struggling with the latter — I didn’t realise that when many women ask for support they’re actually asking for ‘permission’ to give up.
I think that's tricky even if you aren't on the spectrum. When I was struggling with pain during the early months of breastfeeding, I wanted to hear "tough it out!" cheerleading and promises that it would hurt less eventually (which it did). But I probably said a lot of the same things "It hurt so much, this is so hard" etc that women who want to hear permission to give up say.
This newsletter part dives deep into the complexities of giftedness, autism, ADHD, and gender dysphoria. It sheds light on the potential influences of childhood experiences on later-life outcomes. The insights shared are thought-provoking and raise important questions about parenting, development, and mental health. Marvelous writing! 🌟👏
Interesting writing! I think you hit the nail on the head on a bunch of things including hidden pharma/good indications, excess mechanisitic/LH thinking, and parents wishing their kids didn't exist. (For my part, I just decided not to breed...)
A couple of things you might want to explore:
*Maybe the 'refrigerator mothers' were just mildly autistic, and passed on the genes to their kids? They would certainly be seen as cold at the time.
*With all the discourse about toxic masculinity, a lot of nerdy 'gifted' boys may figure that rather than being a despised man (and bad about it), they may prefer a new identity as a transgender person. You gain a community with other LGBT kids (likely to be a big draw for someone who has problems making friends), and a new, higher status (on the left anyway, which is likely where these kids are) as a member of a discriminated group.
Yes, the "refrigerator mothers" would have been mildly autistic! Hans Asperger actually specifically described this in his original paper, suggesting that autism in women presented differently and the traits might become obvious later than in males. Modern-day discourse would argue that girls and women "mask" better than boys and men.
They'd pass on vulnerable genes, but if autism is linked to "cold" parenting and various environmental factors (which I believe it is), then these mothers were most likely the product of "cold" parenting themselves. I think it's epigenetic, genes interacting with nurture and the environment (e.g. there are genes that seem to make some people more vulnerable to nutritional factors and various toxins). I have an essay about "The Dark History of Parenting Books" which dives into this more. I think parenting in the West has been corrupted for centuries, and over multiple generations this has epigenetically made people more "autistic".
Agree with you re gifted boys and trans-ness, but I do actually think there are biological differences and environmental/nurture causes underpinning both "giftedness" and "gender dysphoria". I kind of touch on this in other essays (e.g. The Drama of the Gifted Children), and have one coming up on how the interaction with certain gene mutations and fortified foods might be contributing. Very multifactorial.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness and research going into this piece. I have what used to be called Asperger's (now just part of the autistic spectrum) and as a formally "gifted" kid myself, and I think way too much pressure is being put on kids who happen to perform really well in a niche subset of academic tasks at the expense of their emotional needs. I think this is particularly true in the US where genius is fetishized. I don't think trauma causes autism (twin studies comparing the concordance fraternal and identical twins with autism suggest the causes are mostly genetic) however it can make the severity autistic symptoms much much worse (identical twin studies show the severity of symptoms can differ widely). And I see huge differences between kids whose parents accept their condition and try to raise them in a more balanced way, versus the parents who hyperfocus on their kids' gifts and are in denial that they have any struggles.
I will say that The Diametric Mind theory of autism has never sat right with me. Perhaps this is because me and other Asperger's people I know love the connection between the left and right sides of the brain, love the connection between spirituality and science, or music and math, or have things like synesthesia where they experience words and numbers with colors/emotions. The Connectivity Theory of autism is a competing theory with The Diametric Mind theory, which that autists have different patterns of connectivity in the brain compared with allistics, with some having less connection between left and right hemispheres, but others having more. Autism is truly heterogeneous as you highlighted, and so that might explain why The Diametric Mind theory summarizes a subset of cases but not others. Nevertheless, I can totally agree that our society over-prioritizes the mechanistic over mentalistic to our detriment!
A few additional notes on the problems with twin studies and autism:
(1) There is a higher incidence of autism diagnoses in multiple births than in single births (i.e. twins and triplets are more likely to be autistic than solo birth children). This points to prenatal factors, the mother's body struggling to provide enough for both babies, and to the co-morbid risk of premature birth (multiple births are more likely to be premature, premies are more likely to be autistic). NICU factors play a role here; if you've ever spent some time in a NICU (I had a four day stay with my daughter, it sucked) it's obvious that it would be very traumatic for the babies and adversely affect mother-infant attachment.
(2) Identical twins are at a higher risk for problems in general than fraternal twins because things are more likely to go wrong when the embryo divides. Fraternal twins run in families, so presumably there would be some family genes buffering against complications, but identical twins are more of a random thing.
(3) In adoption studies with twins, you're looking at children developing in a womb environment where the mother is pregnant under stressful circumstances and doesn't want to keep the children. Earlier theories about autism included that rejection by the mother while the child is in the womb increases risk.
Again, not claiming genes aren't involved, but I think conclusions drawn from twin studies tend to be overblown.
Thank you for your comment! Honestly, this essay could have easily been 3x the length, I left so much out, including that I'm with you re Badcock's Diametric Model ... I don't think EITHER him or Iain McGilchrist (hemispheres) are entirely correct, but the overlap in their observations interests me. (This is a little clearer in the two-part essay "The Dangers of Reading Too Much").
The diametric model doesn't have an accurate description of schizophrenia and fails to account for why schizophrenia and autism are highly co-morbid (Badcock says this is indicative of genius—the child is autistic and then the adult is more schizophrenic—but this still feels a little off to me). Spiritual interests tend to kick in in adulthood for most people too.
And Iain McGilchrist fails to explain why so many autistic people have RIGHT HEMISPHERE associated "savant" or "spiky" skills (e.g. spatial skills/math, music).
I think the latter can be reconciled by inferring that autistic people have ABNORMAL right hemisphere brain development, over-development in some areas, unique in each case (e.g. spatial skills, music, connection to animals) and under-development in others (e.g. non-verbal communication, connection to others, connection to one's own body, and in many cases connection to nature—as I include an addiction to or preference for processed foods under this category).
And, of course, more localized connection—the "connectivity theory" seems kind of vague to me, I mean, yes, obviously there's different connectivity, but why and why the variation? As well, "allistic" people will have a wide range of connectivity differences too. All brains are unique ... and there's considerable variation between cultural groups (as well as average differences between males and females within groups).
Check this paper out: https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf
I don't think trauma/neglect can cause autism *on its own*; I guess I don't see much distinction between something that can make autism *worse* versus being a contributing factor, because I sincerely doubt *most* children diagnosed with it are born with it (I think some are, but primarily due to factors in prenatal development, epigenetics not genes). I think in every case there are other factors involved—the skyrocketing rates and increased severity of cases indicates that environmental factors are playing the largest role. However, I think genes for *sensitivity* and ones that affect nutrients (e.g. MTHFR) dramatically increase vulnerability. I think in all "gifted" kid cases there's genes for sensitivity involved, and those make us more vulnerable to abuse/neglect, to toxins, and to drugs (including, most notably, refined sugar).
Badcock also offers an explanation as to how mothers could pass Aspergers on to their offspring (in particular males) through the X chromosome through inactivation imprints that fail to reset, a process called "lingering Lyonization".
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201002/lingering-lyonizationthe-genetics-aspergers-syndrome
But regarding trauma *causing* autism, keep in mind I'm referring to autism diagnoses (and self-diagnoses) here. I don't think what's getting labelled as "autism" is one condition. I think there's a very reasonable argument that many traumatized people are getting diagnosed with "autism" when "complex PTSD" would be more accurate and appropriate. But it's a huge mess to tease apart, because in basically every case where a child is "coldly" parented, you're going to have other risk factors (e.g. a diet higher in processed convenience foods). And higher levels of stress negatively affect the gut microbiome and the body's ability to detox, which would contribute (but not cause by itself) to the higher levels of heavy metal build-up seen in autism.
The problem I have with twin studies is that twins shares a womb, and in the case of adoption studies, the significant trauma of adoption. I'm skeptical of them. And regarding autism running in families, the issue is so do environments, diets, and parenting styles. But as I think autism is more than one condition, I also think there's a good chance that a subset of diagnoses, especially at the "Aspergers" end of things, are largely epigenetic, a result of generations of high mechanism, high cognitive / low nurture, low embodied families (this is clearer in the "Dangers of Reading Too Much" essays).
Gah. It's a giant mess of information. I think the safest approach is to treat each case of "autism" as unique; look for individual causal factors, and come up with an individual approach to improve quality of life.
Will throw it out there that magic mushrooms did WONDERS for me; I especially recommend them if you have disordered or restricted/picky eating / ARFID as a co-morbidity. A high dose of mushrooms seems to be able to fix that.
I talk about it in this note: https://substack.com/@meghanbell/note/c-47663035
Many other "autism" traits are caused or exacerbated by nutritional deficiencies. So, for example, if you struggle to eat vegetables, you might have a lutein deficiency, which will cause light sensitivity. Sound sensitivity can be caused by magnesium and B6 deficiencies. Difficulty sleeping is usually related to Vitamin D and magnesium. Refined sugar, caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine all deplete various nutrients, as do many medications, including birth control pills. Eating a lot of processed foods also means a higher glyphosate exposure, and that screws up folate levels (B9), among other things.
Hi and thank you for your really detailed response. I appreciate that you have actually read extensively about autism and that your theories are based on careful engagement with the science. A lot of people writing about this topic kind of have these hot takes on it without ever doing a basic lit review and I find it frustrating. Thank you for your work and your sincere dedication to understanding this complex topic.
I am talking about twin studies with non-adopted kids, comparing fraternal vs. identical twins raised by the same parents. I think your second point only applies in this situation, and it’s an interesting one! However, to me that would point to a difference in in utero environmental factors versus differences in parenting environmental factors. It is believed that environmental factors due absolutely play a causal role in autism, but it would only make sense if they happened very early on because in order for autism to be correctly diagnosed, symptoms have to start appearing in the early developmental period.
One of the reasons the twin studies are interesting to me is that I have a pair of fraternal twins in my family (not adopted, same womb) and one twin has autism (level I) and the other doesn’t. The one who does started showing some symptoms as an infant and then other symptoms appeared around age two which is when most autistic symptoms appear.
However, I do absolutely agree that trauma later in life can impact the way autistic symptoms express themselves, and bring out more of the negative ones. This is true in ADHD as well. You make a good point in differentiating how autism presents (as differences in behavior) versus the neurological difference that may (or may not in some causes) cause those behaviors. I also suspect that not all cases of adult diagnosed ADHD are actually caused by the same thing, and I think some cases of self-diagnosed autism are probably people mislabeling themselves. Trauma is probably a huge reason. But I also know autistics who were told that their symptoms were just due to trauma, and this turned out not to be the case.
I appreciate the good will in your advice but I have found ways to manage drug free and have found a nutrition, exercise, and other wellness practices that work for me. I am okay with being autistic and not trying to fix it, but rather manage the negative sides. I will never do psychedelics because meditation and spiritual ritual have psychadelic-like effects on me, and I suspect I’m already too open and my brain is already too far off in the spirtual-ecological-everything-is-connected direction, and it’s more useful for me to engaged in grounded, mechanistic type work to keep the my woo-woo side in check :) I do have a lot of friends who are into psychedelics though, and I fit in more easily in communities that use them and think that they’re clearly beneficial for many, and glad they’re becoming less stigmatized and more widely available! I just don’t think they should be recommended for everyone.
Thanks for your thoughtful engagement and I look forward to subscribing and following your work.
Oh, yes, I suspect ADHD is probably more environmental/trauma-based than autism, in general. (Though still related to those pesky sensitivity genes).
Re psychedelics. I avoided them for ages for the same reason as you, but my health got bad enough I was willing to try anything, and they really helped me. I did get way too woo-woo-y for a while, talking in metaphors and making predictions like some sort of old-school prophetess, but once I settled down I was significantly healthier, and most of the weird stuff I said turned out to have some validity behind it (downloaded a bunch of excellent advice on avoiding Covid lol). But I don't think anyone should take them if they're afraid of them, and the main benefits for me were gut healing, curing my chronic migraines, putting me more in touch with spirituality, and with my own body / instincts, and convincing me to stop eating refined sugar and drinking alcohol. It sounds like you already have several practices for a healthy diet, spirituality, and physical connection, and that you did that without any medicine is admirable :-) (And I wasn't trying to suggest mushrooms will "cure" autism, more help with the negative symptoms, depending on what they are! I also realize that since autism is so multifactorial that no treatment will benefit everyone).
I haven’t finished reading this yet, I like to read all the listed sources while I am reading the central piece, so it takes me a bit more time. But great stuff so far and a very well argued case!
On McGilchrist’s hemisphere lateralization theory, I think that the key point that he captures, and other dichotomous theories on cognition miss out on, is that the two hemispheres differ in the “how” more than they differ in the “what”. This means that for the small scale and short term thinking the right hemisphere has a major handicap against the left. But the right hemisphere is excellent at aggregating and synthesizing and becomes unbeatable at long term and more complex kinds of thinking. This maps perfectly onto the kind of precocious giftedness that wears off when more hemisphere balanced people eventually catch up and overtake the left hemisphere focused ones.
Pinning this comment because you summed it up much better than I did / could have!
The role of pubertal hormones in brain development, from prenatal to puberty is fascinating. Scary, in the hands of diabolical scientists.
“Cold parenting” reminded me of a chapter from a book called The Boy Who was Raised as a Dog. It is an autobiography from one of the first child trauma psychologists (he made headlines when he was called into the siege at Waco, TX).
He was called into study a teenage boy who raped and murdered a pubescent girl in cold blood. The boy appeared to be a total sociopath, with zero empathy. The strange thing was, his parents were such nice, simple people. His mother was a bit retarded, but their firstborn son had turned out just fine.
When he interviewed the family, he learned that the first born son had been raised largely by extended family. However, the family had moved into a high rise apartment and lost that support by the time the second baby came.
Bc the mother had sensory issues, she couldn’t stand a crying baby. Whenever the crying baby caused her to freak out, the well-meaning but simple minded husband took her out on a walk, and left the crying baby in the crib.
The boy who grew up to be a cold-hearted killer received little to no empathy as an infant, not because his parents were evil, but because they were pushed beyond their ability to meet his needs living in urban poverty without access to extended family.
Front to cover, the book was packed with stories that highlight the nature of childhood trauma, the possibility of recovery, and sadly the social failure of the modern world.
That's fascinating! Yes, I think extended family is so critical to healthy development. I can see it in my experience of motherhood -- I was supported to be able to stay home and work very part-time (the odd contract here and there), my husband's mother lives with us, and his father and step-mother are close by and very helpful. My mother and step-father live five minutes away and help out, my dad and his girlfriend are also close by, and most of my extended family (my mom was adopted so both adoptive and biological) live in the same province as us. So it was relatively easy for me to be a decent mother, because I have a supportive husband, I didn't have to go back to work, and grandparents, aunts, cousins, and siblings have all helped us out at various points. I also quickly made friends with other parents when we moved to a new neighbourhood and even now, I'm pregnant and exhausted and don't have a lot of energy for my daughter, but another mom comes over frequently with her son and voila I can be useless and my daughter is still happy. I can't imagine having to be a parent on my own, or even with just my husband. I think a lot of people are raising children in very unnatural circumstances. Being a mother is incredibly hard, especially when you have an infant and are recovering from birth. I imagine the biggest predictor of childhood outcomes would be the amount of support mom gets.
I was talking to a single mom at a local parent-toddler hangout and she admitted to me that she worries about her child's language development because she talks so much less when she's alone with her kid. I was the same way when my daughter was a baby ... I just didn't talk that much, because, you know, babies can't carry a conversation, so it's hard. If I didn't have plans to see other adults I knew, I'd take her out on walks and start conversations with other parents and nannies I ran into. We need other people!
Good article overall! For point #6 on cold parenting, when I read how you described cold parenting it sounded like a natural way for an autistic parent to parent their child. This makes me think there is correlation, but only because there is a genetic link that leads autistic parents to have autistic children.
Best way to test this out would be twin studies, but it might be hard to get a large enough one to identify causes of autism.
Yeah ... I think it's epigenetic. Parents high in autistic traits are more likely to pass on genes that increase the risk of autism *and* are more likely to parent their children in such a way that steers them toward autistic development (and they themselves were most likely parented in a way that contributed to their autism). Hans Asperger noted in his paper that many of the mothers in particular of his autistic patients seemed high in autistic traits themselves.
"While we have never met a girl with the fully fledged picture of autism, we have, however, seen several mothers of autistic children whose behaviour had decidedly autistic features. It is difficult to explain this observation. It may be that autistic traits in the female become evident only after puberty. We just do not know.” (Hans Asperger, 1944)
The Drew family in this story is an interesting example of an autistic father who did a lot of research, including reading accounts of children who blame their difficult childhoods on their parents' autism, and is trying to consciously parent in a non-cold way ... at the time of the story, his daughter showed no signs of autism:
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2017/05/autism-parenting/526989/
Yes, I think this is completely true. I think the original “refrigerator mother” theory came from observation of autistic traits in the parents and interpreting them as a developmental cause of the child’s autism rather than realizing that they were observing the same traits in the parents that had been genetically passed to the child.
Well researched and easy to read, great writing! Fascinating info.
Really glad I came across your blog. I am a full-time parent to my autistic & gifted 16 year old son. Since he began puberty 3 years ago, he has developed mental-health related comorbidities that necessitate I care for him full-time. Reading this I feel a little less alone, a little more hopeful that part of what he’s going through is puberty related, and definitely understanding more about 2e! Thank you so much for all your research
Hi Leah, if you haven't yet, check out this essay on folic acid. If the stuff in it sounds familiar, your son might be helped by some dietary changes!
https://thecassandracomplex.substack.com/p/down-the-folic-acid-rabbit-hole
You neglected to mention the single greatest contributor to male GD—autogynephilia. AGP is strongly correlated with autism, which is most likely the chief reason why so many dysphoric young men are gifted. (Also while I’m not wholly convinced of the “extreme male brain” theory, the fact that autism correlates with non-heterosexuality in males does not on its own disprove the theory, since most non-heterosexual behavior in autistic males stems from AGP.)
That said, I think the factors you have listed certainly contribute, especially for females.
The essay was already very long and I don't want to introduce a complicated and controversial topic such as autogynephilia without being able to do it justice. I hope you understand.
Woah. It's rather disturbing how uncannily precise this is as a summary of my life.
Absurdly early cognitive skills - check (poetry and multiplication at age 3)
Mother with narcissistic tendencies - check
Expectations of genius accomplishment, pushed to skipped grades, etc - check
Isolation and bullying throughout school - check
Being essentially raised by, or peered with adult outsiders - check (my family and social connections in childhood and adolescence was de facto an intellectual online discussion forum)
Deviant sexuality - check (not trans but became a PUA and later underground sex guru, had ruminations of being wretched and disgusting unless my "performance" as far as sex quantity/quality/variety, etc was "adequate" for most of my adult life, until recovery last year) (and a check - plus for the recovery being psychedelic assisted)
Sensitivity to criticism, difficulty following through with challenging tasks later in life - check
Atypical right brained interest - check (playing exotically designed / extended range basses and guitars)
Extensive challenges with relationships, including professional - check
Interestingly, I am trying and have a decent chance of success of achieving tenure in (my current) dream job for someone in my position, an academic research mathematician with no teaching and service duties. Perhaps this essay presents a nice way to have a non-narcissistic way to present my intended case: suggest a modest basic income with a performance-based high tail. That way if I'm just a wacko I'm still content and they don't waste too much resources, and the degree to which I'm more than just a wacko and I could create outstanding intellectual contributions to make the world a better place (and I am directing research towards prosocial ends as much as I can, energy efficiency, health science, etc) is incentivized, and thus the expectation of contribution to the world even under (the non narcissistic prior of) low probability of true "genius" is still maximized :)
(And my data driven prior has not changed from my prior, I had top pub/citations in my CS dept for a couple years in a row but recently one of my PIs informes me that I am a stupid underperformer, so I truly have no idea, it's somewhere in between with a bias towards just being a wacko, is my current understanding)
(My apologies if the terminology is unfamiliar, I came to your substack from statistical sociologists so assumed you were similar)
Thanks! Will keep an eye on your work
I'm glad you have a shot at the dream career! Not technically a "math" book, but a book about math -- have you read Weapons of Math Destruction? Sounds like it might be up your alley (albeit probably a little simplistic since it's written for lay readers).
Reminds me of some of the things I'd been looking at on substack. You see I recently was a part of a research project I only mid way realized was associated firmly with an unethical ideology (fortunately I left that project without cancellation incident it seems). So I started to read up on the antrhopology of the intelligentsia and came across this article.
It's important to have civic duty as a researcher, as distrust of quantification can be very problematic. For instance when they stopped using SATs for admission criteria in the US all the American professors complained about the quality of the students. Indeed it even made disparities worse: exceptionally high SAT scores in an area with generally low scores were a reliable way to rescue intelligent kids from rough neighborhoods. Whereas upper middle class white kids could afford tutoring on and were culturally better aligned to do well on essays and interviews.
I'm a bit cynical, and suspect it was less a distrust of quantification that turned elites against the SAT, and more that a smart kid without any advantages will typically score higher than an advantaged kid without smarts. They want college admissions to be based on things money can buy.
Where you say— Baron-Cohen argues that females are more likely to score highly on “emphasizing”, —— I think you mean “empathizing”
Oof, yes! Thank you for catching that. I'll fix it.
Interesting article, but it has some issues. If you’ll look closely, the study finding a correlation between negative mental health outcomes (including autism) and outlier high IQ relies on a sample of MENSA members. In fact, most studies which find such a result do, while studies that don’t rely on MENSA tend to find positive mental health outcomes for the highly intelligent. It is most likely that MENSAns are just a neurotic group, divorced from their high IQ (which Cremieux Recueil suggests is actually not as high as they imagine https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/mensa-the-above-average-iq-society ).
In fact, autism is strongly associated with clinical mental retardation, with around half of all diagnosed autists being below two standard deviations in IQ. Yes, this is skewed by the severely autistic, but I am yet to see evidence of some sort of “parabolic” relationship between autism severity and IQ. There may be a bit more high functioning autists among the intelligent because smart men tend to have children later in life, and paternal age is a major corollary with Autism.
ADHD has shown either no effect or a negative effect on intelligence in studies investigating the relationship. Substance abuse and going Trans do seem to have some relation with high intelligence. Although, some intelligence researchers like Kirkegaard have suggested that this is because being a gender dysphoriac or an autogynephiliac requires a degree of abstract reasoning and creativity that the unintelligent do not have
I believe the reason a lot of gifted kids burn out is quite simple: IQ tests become more heritable with age. When you’re a child, environment has a bigger effect, but it regresses to what one would expect based on parent IQ scores as they age. Kids who tried really hard in school, whose parents made them do lots of reading and writing, may have seen inaccurate elevated scores on childhood IQ tests, and also gotten burnout from this lifestyle. Most gifted programs are not super strict. If you want to see what the actual gifteds — the genetic freaks — are up to, you’ll have to pick a stronger threshold than what schools are doing. I did a bit of research on my old school (where I was labeled intellectually gifted, if I recall correctly) and being in the IG category only required scoring a 125 in at least one of the three subcategories. I’m assuming this is somewhat analogous in distribution to an actual IQ test, so this is not a terrible difficult bridge to conquer especially since higher IQ people’s subtest scores correlate less than low IQ people. Plenty of 115, 110 IQ kids were probably labeled gifteds.
I recall recently reading a study on actual gifted kids, as in real freakishly smart kids, who averaged an IQ in the 150s. It’s an old study, albeit, but most of them ended up with PhDs or became doctors or lawyers.
I think we're mostly on the same page ... I realize autism is more associated with lower IQ, I'm really only talking about what used to be called "Aspergers" here. There was a study that found there are four distinct subtypes of autism, two with above-average verbal IQs, one with average verbal IQ, and one with below-average. This article only applies to the above-average verbal IQ groups. I don't think autism is one condition, it's more an umbrella term -- which makes it difficult to discuss. And it's multifactorial, with lots of different causes, and I doubt any one case only has one cause or any one cause applies to all cases.
Yes, I think many / most kids who are designated "gifted" are as you describe ... kids who were pushed hard academically (or extreme try-hards) and this leads to the burn-out and brain differences from stress and the various parts of normal childhood development they missed out on while spending all their time with their noses in books (etc). These strategies only take them so far. At least part of the draw to obtaining an autism/ADHD diagnosis later in life and/or coming out as trans or non-binary is the narrative that comes with it, which can explain why success didn't come as easily to them as they expected.
There does seem to be more going on with the trans / autism / high IQ overlap than I have here. If you're interested, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this essay, which looks at another potential factor ...
https://thecassandracomplex.substack.com/p/down-the-folic-acid-rabbit-hole
First of all, I don't think most kids (in the U.S) whose parents/teachers classified them as "gifted" actually are/were. They were just told how smart they were their entire lives and internalized that they were the "best," whether or not that was actually true. And now with every discomfort or problem being considered a disorder, it's natural that someone who was once called "gifted" during our generation is now blaming that on whatever issue they now have (transgenderism, ADHD, anxiety, etc.). In short: this is the result of some really bad parenting of adults who never grew out of their "I'm special" phase.
That's definitely a big part of it! The other big part is that the talents that classify a child as "gifted" don't (necessarily) translate to original, creative thought in adulthood. I don't think it's a good idea to push precocity on children or to classify them as "gifted". I suspect this is a big reason for the antisemitism among many elite college students as well -- they were "gifted" as children, enough to get the grades and test scores for a "good" school, but the precocity starts to wear off as they enter adulthood, and it becomes clear that they aren't destined for the success they feel entitled to and were told to expect. A group (like the Jews) that disproportionately produces high achievers (in adulthood) is a natural target, especially if one buys into the leftist belief that all differences between groups are a result of some sort of oppressor / oppressed dynamic. I do actually think that most of these young people are on the autism spectrum, broadly speaking, and Hans Asperger was really on to something when he pointed out that intelligence testing gives a "false impression" of the intelligence of autistic people.
“Factors related to “Big Pharma” and “Big Food” are probably playing a much larger role in the skyrocketing rates of developmental disorders and mental health problems than daycare use or parenting.”
I was waiting to see if you got here. And that you did lends tremendous credence to the coherence of your thoughts on this subject. Excellent and informative read, thank you 🙏🏻
Oof, it's a big knot but better to focus on one or two threads at a time. I've written other essays that dig into the nutritional and pharmaceutical factors more, but I swear to god there's like three thousand rabbit holes to jump down here. I started poking at synthetic nutrients (in particular folic acid) and ended up with something like 12,000 words over two posts.
I think it’s incredibly challenging to put the pieces in their relatively correct places. As someone who grew up in a narcissistically abusive household and exhibited symptoms of CPTSD well into my 30’s, I can say the healing process required a focus on every layer (body, mind, soul), and I couldn’t point to one which was more important than the other. One of the biggest challenges was to only go so far down the rabbit-hole as was necessary because so many different paths needed to be explored even to have a chance at healing. The material layer was easiest to focus on due to hyper-rationality, while the deeper soul level required external events to breakdown the psyche and force the suppressed rage to the surface.
I grew up under communism, where nobody was elevated as gifted. It worked well. In retrospect, I see this as one of the damaging trends in American education .Let kids be kids! There will be plenty of time in their lives for being sorted and pushed and prodded, when they grow up. :-)
Yes, I don't think it's psychologically healthy for kids to be told that they are "gifted" or have a high IQ or whatever. But at the same time, I was bored out of my mind in grade school. I'm not sure what the solution is.
Home schooling?
Actually, I would not have minded school if my parents had told me "just do what you have to do, enjoy your friends and the good teachers, and don't worry about the rest. Learning on your own is where it's at." :-) And let me play hooky often.
IQ becomes interesting later in life, one of many things, kinda like Briggs Myers. Using it to sort kids is appalling.
Interesting piece.
So, I’m a late-diagnosed (I received my diagnosis in my early 40s) autistic (I would have been diagnosed with Asperger’s had my diagnosis come about a decade earlier) woman with one autistic kid (daughter) and one allistic (non-autistic) kid (boy, ten years older). I parented them very similarly (what used to be called attachment parenting). My daughter showed signs of autism from a very young age. My son didn’t (he was a bright little kid and maybe might have been termed ‘gifted’ if such labels were common here? I’m not sure).
We didn’t have ‘gifted’ labels where and when I grew up (Northern England, born late 70s) but I was always in the ‘top set’ where streaming applied. I did well academically but not as well as people thought I would. I was bullied horrifically. I rarely felt loved or liked by most adults — I was *admired* more, which is an interesting state! I was parented VERY strictly in some ways (‘spare the rod — spoil the child’) and much less so in others (typical 1980s free range childhood).
If one thinks of gender as a sort of spectrum from male to female (I’m not sure I do but for illustrative purposes let’s go with it) I’m probably just over the half way line into female. I find dresses more comfy than trousers I suppose, and I am a mum, and feel absolutely no discomfort with that label, or being called a woman.
I do wonder, were I a teen today instead of approaching 50, if I might be persuaded to join the ranks of the ‘non-binary’? I’m not sure — but I definitely wouldn’t want to be male, and have never ‘felt’ male, despite having quite a few stereotypical masculine traits.
I really appreciate the research and the effort to remain even-handed/neutral. Though personally, I found the overall tone felt heavily like one of concern — and whilst I do agree there are definitely things about which one ought to be concerned, there is definitely some joy in receiving an autism diagnosis too, though I think some people (especially those who are very online) see that as the end of the process, whereas for others it’s more like a starting point; I find the autism label only so useful now and have moved on from the point where it felt like it was engraved through me like a stick of Blackpool rock.
Thank you for writing/sharing. x
Thanks for sharing! You might find this essay interesting as well -- it examines a possible link between genetic and dietary factors in autism. (The genes would also impact how kids respond to nurture and other environmental factors so it's a bit complicated).
https://thecassandracomplex.substack.com/p/down-the-folic-acid-rabbit-hole
Thanks I will read. Have you read Maureen Minchin’s theories about breastmilk and epigenetics? I think you might find them really interesting. https://lifib.org.uk/stop-press-milk-matters-available-inexpensive-e-books/
Yes, I'm familiar with her work, though I haven't read the actual books! It makes a lot of sense to me. I'm very suspicious of lab-made nutrients and foods, stuff that's highly processed etc. I breastfed my first child and intend to do so with my second (due soon) ... not easy but worth it. In particular I've been grateful that I breastfeed when my kid has gotten sick or hurt, because it almost always helps.
I breastfed both of mine way past infancy and became a peer supporter for a time, though my difficulties in picking up hints and non-spoken messages led to me struggling with the latter — I didn’t realise that when many women ask for support they’re actually asking for ‘permission’ to give up.
I think that's tricky even if you aren't on the spectrum. When I was struggling with pain during the early months of breastfeeding, I wanted to hear "tough it out!" cheerleading and promises that it would hurt less eventually (which it did). But I probably said a lot of the same things "It hurt so much, this is so hard" etc that women who want to hear permission to give up say.
This newsletter part dives deep into the complexities of giftedness, autism, ADHD, and gender dysphoria. It sheds light on the potential influences of childhood experiences on later-life outcomes. The insights shared are thought-provoking and raise important questions about parenting, development, and mental health. Marvelous writing! 🌟👏
Interesting writing! I think you hit the nail on the head on a bunch of things including hidden pharma/good indications, excess mechanisitic/LH thinking, and parents wishing their kids didn't exist. (For my part, I just decided not to breed...)
A couple of things you might want to explore:
*Maybe the 'refrigerator mothers' were just mildly autistic, and passed on the genes to their kids? They would certainly be seen as cold at the time.
*With all the discourse about toxic masculinity, a lot of nerdy 'gifted' boys may figure that rather than being a despised man (and bad about it), they may prefer a new identity as a transgender person. You gain a community with other LGBT kids (likely to be a big draw for someone who has problems making friends), and a new, higher status (on the left anyway, which is likely where these kids are) as a member of a discriminated group.
Yes, the "refrigerator mothers" would have been mildly autistic! Hans Asperger actually specifically described this in his original paper, suggesting that autism in women presented differently and the traits might become obvious later than in males. Modern-day discourse would argue that girls and women "mask" better than boys and men.
They'd pass on vulnerable genes, but if autism is linked to "cold" parenting and various environmental factors (which I believe it is), then these mothers were most likely the product of "cold" parenting themselves. I think it's epigenetic, genes interacting with nurture and the environment (e.g. there are genes that seem to make some people more vulnerable to nutritional factors and various toxins). I have an essay about "The Dark History of Parenting Books" which dives into this more. I think parenting in the West has been corrupted for centuries, and over multiple generations this has epigenetically made people more "autistic".
https://thecassandracomplex.substack.com/p/the-dangers-of-reading-too-much-part-df8
Agree with you re gifted boys and trans-ness, but I do actually think there are biological differences and environmental/nurture causes underpinning both "giftedness" and "gender dysphoria". I kind of touch on this in other essays (e.g. The Drama of the Gifted Children), and have one coming up on how the interaction with certain gene mutations and fortified foods might be contributing. Very multifactorial.