NationStates Jolt Archive

In the US, there has been a huge increase in autism among our youth. Part of this is the fact that children are not categorized as "retarded" so much now that we have more information on other mental disorders. But even this does not account for the full increase.

There was the theory of injections for Measels, Mumps and Rhubella (the MMR vaccine) and the mercury used in the processing. this, however, has been tested and shows little influence.

A new hypothesis has been placed, which I find very interesting, but perhaps a bit far-fetched.

The hypothesis states that America was essentially colonized by people who displayed signs of autism. The puritans were unable to function in British and Dutch society. Many places were settled by people who, for social reasons, were unable to survive in Europe. Even the framers could not bend to the social rules cast by the UK. These are all signs of autism.

Could the rise in autism be contributed to by who settled America? It seems a bit rediculous at first, but it is plausable. Even if these settlers didn't have autism, they had the signs of it, and it could have magnified over time. At the very least, this provides some kind of explanation for America's huge number of autists, while most other countries have had very little increase, relatively speaking.

None of my ancestors were the sort of which you speak! HAH!

Cruelty aside, if this turns out to be true, it's pretty depressing.

Its really the Minature Giant Space Dwarves that are injecting our infaints with XJE7890 at birth while posing as doctors in their machine husks.

Its really the Minature Giant Space Dwarves that are injecting our infaints with XJE7890 at birth while posing as doctors in their machine husks.As conspiracy theories go, I'm afraid yours lose. The OP is far more insane & improbable. Sorry.

As conspiracy theories go, I'm afraid yours lose. The OP is far more insane & improbable. Sorry.
Meh, just bored out of my mind. :p

My son has a form of Autism, low level and he is in almost all aspects a totally 'normal' boy, he attends mainstream school, is of normal intelligence and is exceptionally gifted in sport. His Autism was picked up durng an intensive investigation because he has also been diagnosed with ADHD (and NO, it is not an excuse for bad behavior, he really does have it and the medication he takes really does help him, it does not make him a zombie etc)
His Autism is of a level that until advances in understanding would not have been picked up, he would probably just been considered a naughty kid when I was at school, and before that, in the days before we all became enlightened by political correctness, he would have been considered a 'real' boy, because he doesn't like to read and do schoolwork, but loves to do sport. I was told by a medical proffesional that in evolutionary terms, he would have been considered an 'ALPHA' male, as he is taller than average, is physically strong and muscular, is good looking and fearless. It is just that society now expects different things. We are no longer supposed to be physical, we are not supposed to go out and hunt and defend our homes and family and there is no need, on the whole, to be fearless and bold in day to day life. Notice the rise and rise of adrenalin pumping alternative sport, bungee jumping and free climbing etc are outlets for people who nature has given evolutionary succesful 'ALPHA' qualities to, society is the thing that has changed. We now value people more for what they can do mentally and how well they fit into the social expectations of the majority, than by how strong, brave and fearless they are (except at times when society demands it, like during war and peacetime crisis like natural disaster etc)

The other thing is, there always used to be what was known in England as 'the eccentric'. mainly men, they often seem to exibit Autistic tendencies, obsessive stamp collectors, train spotters, bird watchers etc etc. We all know people who are intersted in a subject to a degree beyond what is 'normal' often called 'geeks' and 'anoraks' they seem to be socially somewhat inept and have a more insular aproach to their intersts. Many men are HUGELY intersted in sport, but some know everything about a team, down to long boring lists of stats, this is taking the interest into the realm of obsession. I think that rise in diagnosis of Autism is mainly due to the rise in awareness and societal changes that require us to 'conform to the norm' much more than ever before.

I think that rise in diagnosis of Autism is mainly due to the rise in awareness and societal changes that require us to 'conform to the norm' much more than ever before.I think you're equal parts right & wrong.

I agree that the increase isn't a real increase, but rather a result of increased knowledge of the phenomenon. I even agree that the main reason for our current advances in understanding, are because our societies have become so highly specialised.

But unlike you, I see our increased understanding as a step on the road to less strict social norms & eventually better opportunities for people like your kid (who sounds a bit like myself, honestly.. Though I'm not terribly pretty).

Ah but I do see it as a road to less strict social norm. But I think that the social norm is MORE strict now than in the past. I think that the school system is more and more geared towards standards and targets and the national curruculum and SATS and things of that ilk are steering us into a world or standardisation beyond anything that we have seen before. Standardisation is seen by the government as a good thing, but I don't want to be the same as everyone else, and I don't want my kids to be either, I want them to be individuals and to be accepted as such by everyone.

Vive la difference

In the US, there has been a huge increase in autism among our youth. Part of this is the fact that children are not categorized as "retarded" so much now that we have more information on other mental disorders. But even this does not account for the full increase.

There was the theory of injections for Measels, Mumps and Rhubella (the MMR vaccine) and the mercury used in the processing. this, however, has been tested and shows little influence.

A new hypothesis has been placed, which I find very interesting, but perhaps a bit far-fetched.

The hypothesis states that America was essentially colonized by people who displayed signs of autism. The puritans were unable to function in British and Dutch society. Many places were settled by people who, for social reasons, were unable to survive in Europe. Even the framers could not bend to the social rules cast by the UK. These are all signs of autism.

Could the rise in autism be contributed to by who settled America? It seems a bit rediculous at first, but it is plausable. Even if these settlers didn't have autism, they had the signs of it, and it could have magnified over time. At the very least, this provides some kind of explanation for America's huge number of autists, while most other countries have had very little increase, relatively speaking.

Although I do not know too much about autism in the USA, I think it's ridiculous to think it's due to genetic caracteristics from the first settlers in the 17th and 18th 'cause now most of the population in the country has no anglo-ducht ancestors but from many others countries. So if your theory were right it have would be seen more in the Independence Time than now.

I think that rise in diagnosis of Autism is mainly due to the rise in awareness and societal changes that require us to 'conform to the norm' much more than ever before.

That's a good point.

One thing I'd like to point out is that our high-tech society is very forgiving for people with autistic personalities or for people with mild forms of autism, like Asperger's disorder. People who don't like talking face-to-face, people who don't understand facial expressions, can still make plenty of friends on EverQuest and speak their minds on online forums (haha), and they perform well in jobs like computer programming.

We're living in an age where we can do all our shopping online, call a 1-800 number and speak to a computer automated voice, get money from a machine, and even check out groceries without speaking to a person. Some people spend more time IM-ing and texting their friends than they do talking in person. So are we creating a generation of people with no social skills?

I read somewhere that there is a high incidence of Asperger's and other forms of autism in Silicon Valley, among children of programmers and software developers. Hm...

Some thoughts...

I work in a school for low-level autists, also refered to as kids with Aspberger syndrome. In short; they are on par with other kids when it comes to IQ and intellectual thinking but have problems when it comes to social activities and such. Often Aspergers syndrome also includes phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorder and such.

Now, if that study is to be taken seriously, they must also concider this: Does the african-american population of the states show the same percentage of low-level autism as the white? What about immigrants and native americans? If other groups of the american society do not have the same abundance of autism there might be a hint to continiue the investigation, otherwise it's pretty pointless.

There has also been major scientific breaktroughs done in this field in russia, concerning the so called 'Neurokinesology', womb movements and child reflexes which has been known to help kids and adults with learning problems and overactive disorders, those interested should really check it out.
Just my cents since I'm interested in the topic. Cheers.

Ah but I do see it as a road to less strict social norm. But I think that the social norm is MORE strict now than in the past. I think that the school system is more and more geared towards standards and targets and the national curruculum and SATS and things of that ilk are steering us into a world or standardisation beyond anything that we have seen before. Standardisation is seen by the government as a good thing, but I don't want to be the same as everyone else, and I don't want my kids to be either, I want them to be individuals and to be accepted as such by everyone.

Vive la differenceI couldn't have said it better myself :)

Vive la difference

I couldn't have said it better myself

Vive la difference
But you did: you bolded it, and bold makes things better. Just look at that last sentence, the second half was undeniably superior to the first because it was bolded.
It has been scientifically proven, at the Institute for 1337 n00b0l0gy (http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/by_topic/hahvahd.gif), that the only way to get better than bold is to use capitals at the beginning of every sentence, Like So, or to intersperse it with random and inappropriate moving images, hence:
This :headbang: Is :mp5: The :upyours: Ultimate :sniper: Typing :gundge: Format.

And now you know!

I think it's just because hands have gotten more interesting lately.

In the US, there has been a huge increase in autism among our youth. ...
A new hypothesis has been placed, which I find very interesting, but perhaps a bit far-fetched.

The hypothesis states that America was essentially colonized by people who displayed signs of autism. The puritans were unable to function in British and Dutch society. Many places were settled by people who, for social reasons, were unable to survive in Europe. Even the framers could not bend to the social rules cast by the UK. These are all signs of autism.

Could the rise in autism be contributed to by who settled America? It seems a bit rediculous at first, but it is plausable. Even if these settlers didn't have autism, they had the signs of it, and it could have magnified over time. At the very least, this provides some kind of explanation for America's huge number of autists, while most other countries have had very little increase, relatively speaking.


One problem with this theory is that it would be unusual for the trait to take so long before it began to dominate. Also the USA has had many waves of immigration over a long period of time (settlement began in the 1600s), and immigration to the US was not usually motivated by the same reasons you ascribe to the original settlers. Also, a gene-pool as diverse as that of the US would not really permit the kind of concentration of the autistic gene you suggest.

BTW, your analysis of the original immigrants as possibly "essentially" displaying signs of being autistic is inaccurate. Your statement "Even the framers could not bend to the social rules cast by the UK" is incorrect. Political and religious dissidence is not a mark of autism. It is a mark of that sector colonizers to which you refer.

Also, your statement "These are all signs of autism" is flawed. Autism is a cluster of symptoms and signs, not just one symptom, and especially not that one symptom when we consider how much more restrictive that society was than most societies today. Tolerance for people who didn't "bend" in the 17th century was minimal: behaviour we regard as disruptive but tolerable now, would not have been accepted then in public. The consequences even of seeming rebelliously disruptive, let alone being autistic, probably would not include being sent to the US colonies. Modern "normal" children suddenly transplanted into those days would find themselves being beaten regularly and severely until they conformed. Childhood behaviour that today elicits adult smiles and perhaps gentle reproofs would have been punished in the early centuries of the USA.

An example comes to mind from a booklet I once saw that explained how children were to be educated (yes, they had such things then). Unlike Dr Spock's guidelines, this booklet was characterized by what we'd consider harshness. For instance, it recommended beating a child for speaking or making other sounds during a meal, unless he or she was spoken to first. No exceptions. Now imagine a two-year old child with moderate autism in such a world? A child that couldn't "do sums" or read or "make letters" also was beaten rather than taught. And now imagine imposing that regime on an autistic child who somehow gets as far as school.

As for their social situation, children who might be diagnosed today as autists in the 17th century and all the way into the early 20th most probably were identified simply as "mad" or "touched" from infancy. They usually were "shut up" --- locked up in the attic or outbuilding by the less well off, or sent to asylums the rich, or (perhaps) occasionally allowed to die. How could true autists grow up to become educated members of society with money and skill to travel in such a world?

By the standards of that time, most of us (and perhaps you?) would not "bend to the social rules cast by the UK" either. There are many reasons why someone may not be conformist. Only one is autism. But none would have been tolerated in children, including autism, which is important to emphasize because the condition, which is early-onset, is also seen early unless it's very mild.

My next problem. The severity and "style" of the signs and symptoms of autism don't fit what is known and recorded of the colonists of that time. To give just one example, the extremely high degree of cooperation required between so many people to successfully travel from Europe to the New World and then to establish complex, functioning, stable societies would not have been possible if a significant number of those people had been autistic. Keep in mind that these colonies were not individualistic or amorphous. They were highly structured, and survival required them to be highly cooperative. Even moderate autism would have been more than enough to make someone unsuitable for survival.

I realize you might be talking about colonists with only the slightest degree of autism, as distinguished by modern diagnostic criteria. But back then, people would either function "normally", in which case they would be undistinguished from everyone else, or they would fail to function "normally" -- in which case they would be "mad" or "bad". There were no lobbyists or laws protecting the rights of those they considered "mad".

Of course a few high-functioning autists could have slipped through, and been part of the colonizers, but even in present society when we look for them, there don't seem to be all that many autists who fall into this category. Why should we suppose that there were a higher proportion of high-functioning autists who could pass in society in the 17th and 18th centuries than there are now in our own?


If you're confusing people having Asperger's Syndrome with other autistic-spectrum people, please don't. Although we know now they're not the same, the early onset of both means that in the time-period we're talking about, they would have been treated identically. That is, on the whole they would never have had the opportunities needed to develop their abilities to live "normally", unless their condition were very mild. This means they would not have been able to educate and train themselves to earn money in Europe sufficient to buy passage on a ship, to know how to survive the extreme adversities of colonizing a hostile environment, or to be able to establish functioning colonies.

All in all, I don't think it likely.

FWIW.

Oook.

autism rocks.

Einstein ,dude,einstein.



I have it too. :cool:
Oh btw, its not that hard to fit in if you make the attempt so all this crap about us being "Doomed to be different" is a load of shite.

It made me take intrest in human emotion, and im now considering psychiatry, i love sarcasm because i dont understand it and stuff like that.

Dyspraxia made me a computer wiz too.

Epilepsy made me rebel and drink vodka... so... i suppose that ones a bit bad.

Actually, I believe the use of pesticides and herbicides in common foods or around certain areas is one of the causes of increased autism in the USA. Apparently a study was done showing that pesticide levels directly correlated with increased autism rates in certain parts of the US, although tbh I don't remember the links, who did the study, or anything. It could have been done by Mrs. Anderson's 5th grade class or the N00b Institute of America for all I know.

Actually, I believe the use of pesticides and herbicides in common foods or around certain areas is one of the causes of increased autism in the USA. Apparently a study was done showing that pesticide levels directly correlated with increased autism rates in certain parts of the US, although tbh I don't remember the links, who did the study, or anything. It could have been done by Mrs. Anderson's 5th grade class or the N00b Institute of America for all I know.
huh....haven't heard that hypothesis.

My sped teacher was talking about how quickly autsm in the US is growing, and handed out an article with the argument I said in the OP...it kind of caught my attention because its very unlikely, but has that little edge of plausability. The rest account it to more advanced ways of detecting it and more accurate guidelines.