Are the rates of autism occurrences falling in the US and Europe? With the huge reduction in the number of people smoking, the end of leaded petrol, requirements for catalytic converters in cars, and most of the manufacturing industry being exported to the far east, presumably particulate pollution is far lower than was during the post-WWII years. If this research is correct there should be a corresponding drop in the numbers of autistic children.
I would like to propose a new hypothesis. Autism rates are linked to the incidence of people non-ironically drinking fruit juices to cleanse themselves of "toxins."
A correlation would certainly help back up their suggestion (but not prove), but lack of one wouldn't necessarily mean they were wrong as it would be impossible to control against other possible factors.
Unfortunately, I don't think there are historical numbers on Autism diagnoses that fit with our current understandings. The widespread recognition and frequent diagnoses of autism is a relatively recent phenomenon.
In other words, even if rate of incidence is declining, rate of diagnoses has sharply risen in recent decades, complicating the data.
The keywords is "presumably". There should only be a drop if your hypothesis is correct which given population growth, car ownership trends and overall economic growth is doubtful.
The keywords is "presumably". There should only be a drop if your hypothesis is correct which given population growth, car ownership trends and overall economic growth is doubtful.
That's good point, because the rate is, of course, escalating.
It is interesting that these sorts of articles ("BPA exposure associated with 7 point IQ decrease" was a recent one on the HN front page) seem to gloss over the fact that when these exposures were higher, the Flynn Effect continued unabated. Lead is another substance that, although nasty, is blamed for IQ declines, yet, when lead levels were highest, average IQs continued to rise. Now that lead levels are plumbing new lows, is there evidence that those "lost" IQ points have been gained by younger generations? If BPA is banned, I am sure that there will be scant evidence of those 7 IQ points coming back in a generation or 2 (if anyone bothers looking). Your point about inter-generational autism rates is similar.
I'm not an expert, but I can't take these sorts of environmental toxicity studies seriously anymore.
I don't think that you can accurately measure this, because we didn't have a concept of "autism spectrum disorder" until recently.
I doubt you'd be comparing apples to oranges over a long timeline. Actually, I don't think it's a slam dunk that we have more autism today, or more diagnoses.
There are probably more APIs out there. Autism numbers by location should be known. Simple correlation could go a long way to check the consistency of the hypothesis.
EDIT: The autism data needed would be age of diagnosis, to map it to the proper air quality metric.
"There is a large inherited component to autism, but lead researcher Dr Marc Weisskopf said there was mounting evidence that air pollution may play a role too."
The way of thinking about Autism should be like the way we think about human language. Yes, the ability to speak, or rather our abilities to acquire and learn a language are, of course, inherited, but when there is no one to speak to a child, or a child refused or unable to participate, or there are other obstacles in the environment, after passing a certain age he will never speak at all.
It seems that autism has the same pattern. It has genetic aspect and environmental aspect and one of personal experience and amount of practice, so no one could identify all the factors, leave alone find a "single cause".
Of course, it is genes, for, say 80% (which is rather a flawed mental construct), like it is in everything else - height or IQ, for example (why should it be different?), but the rest 20% are, of course, not mere "air pollution".
It is the same meme-nonsense (with which we're bombarded daily by mainstream media) as to say, "look, children in a toxic environments have worse grades and misbehave more". OK, perhaps they are, but this is an "empty message", a "meme" based on a naive common-sense. Correlation does not imply causation, and even if this factor is a "valid" one, its actual implication is infinitesimally small - it, perhaps, contributes to "stress" or states related to "depression" (which is another meme).
Most of these meme-studies are just misuse of statistical tools together with a confirmation and self-serving biases. People construct statistical "evidences" for their own flawed constructs, instead of methodically removing everything "mental" and see what remains.
Let's apply the Principle of Charity here. Perhaps the researchers are idiots, far below the average education and intelligence of, say, Hacker News users. But perhaps they're as familiar with such notions as "complex phenomenon" and "environmental factor" as we are.
We should choose the more charitable interpretation, not because there aren't idiots out there, but because doing so leads to more interesting discussion in the long run—and usually in the short run too.
Why not? Are researches not hungry for grants, quick fame and cheap sensations? Do they never neglect subtleties of statistical models, like necessity of a third "control group"? Are they all flawless and brilliant, or there might be some halo effect, overconfidence and jumping to conclusions? Are they never trying find a support for their hypothesis form correlations barely distinguishable statistically? Kahneman suggest that this is rather common.
The first question is "How does they manage to properly test this "link" with a distinct control group". Could you explain, please.
Oh, I agree with you on all of that and more, but if we're to have substantive discussion, we need to guard against generic dismissals. This is the weed that grows most abundantly around here. (Generic endorsement is probably just as bad, but we don't have that problem on HN.)
If you have specific information about this or relevant research, by all means contribute it. But railing against idiocy in a generic way lowers the signal/noise ratio of the threads: if generic it must be predictable, and if predictable it can add no information. The Principle of Charity is so good for counteracting this that we may add it to the HN guidelines.
Intellectual charity doesn't require accepting anything false. It means that when there are several reasonable interpretations, you should pick the strongest. This goes against the default tendency we all have, to pick the weakest to then have the pleasure of overturning it. That pleasure is strong—so strong that one may begin seeing idiots for it—and it overpowers the pleasures of curiosity, which is what we're going for.
The word "link" is used throughout the article, and its message seems to essentially be Yet, the research is unable to conclusively say that pollution causes autism as there could be other factors that were not accounted for in the study.
This looks like nothing more than spurious correlation. Even if rates of autism and levels of air pollution are found to be correlated, we cannot infer that they are causally related. Another factor correlated with air pollution could actually be causally linked with autism.
19 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 55.8 ms ] threadIn other words, even if rate of incidence is declining, rate of diagnoses has sharply risen in recent decades, complicating the data.
I think it's safe to say, that, in the West, air pollution has dropped dramatically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog
It is interesting that these sorts of articles ("BPA exposure associated with 7 point IQ decrease" was a recent one on the HN front page) seem to gloss over the fact that when these exposures were higher, the Flynn Effect continued unabated. Lead is another substance that, although nasty, is blamed for IQ declines, yet, when lead levels were highest, average IQs continued to rise. Now that lead levels are plumbing new lows, is there evidence that those "lost" IQ points have been gained by younger generations? If BPA is banned, I am sure that there will be scant evidence of those 7 IQ points coming back in a generation or 2 (if anyone bothers looking). Your point about inter-generational autism rates is similar.
I'm not an expert, but I can't take these sorts of environmental toxicity studies seriously anymore.
I doubt you'd be comparing apples to oranges over a long timeline. Actually, I don't think it's a slam dunk that we have more autism today, or more diagnoses.
That's not correct, this research says nothing about other factors that could affect the rate of occurrence of autism.
There are probably more APIs out there. Autism numbers by location should be known. Simple correlation could go a long way to check the consistency of the hypothesis.
EDIT: The autism data needed would be age of diagnosis, to map it to the proper air quality metric.
It seems that autism has the same pattern. It has genetic aspect and environmental aspect and one of personal experience and amount of practice, so no one could identify all the factors, leave alone find a "single cause". Of course, it is genes, for, say 80% (which is rather a flawed mental construct), like it is in everything else - height or IQ, for example (why should it be different?), but the rest 20% are, of course, not mere "air pollution".
It is the same meme-nonsense (with which we're bombarded daily by mainstream media) as to say, "look, children in a toxic environments have worse grades and misbehave more". OK, perhaps they are, but this is an "empty message", a "meme" based on a naive common-sense. Correlation does not imply causation, and even if this factor is a "valid" one, its actual implication is infinitesimally small - it, perhaps, contributes to "stress" or states related to "depression" (which is another meme). Most of these meme-studies are just misuse of statistical tools together with a confirmation and self-serving biases. People construct statistical "evidences" for their own flawed constructs, instead of methodically removing everything "mental" and see what remains.
We should choose the more charitable interpretation, not because there aren't idiots out there, but because doing so leads to more interesting discussion in the long run—and usually in the short run too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
The first question is "How does they manage to properly test this "link" with a distinct control group". Could you explain, please.
So, I prefer to read Simon Baron-Cohen.
If you have specific information about this or relevant research, by all means contribute it. But railing against idiocy in a generic way lowers the signal/noise ratio of the threads: if generic it must be predictable, and if predictable it can add no information. The Principle of Charity is so good for counteracting this that we may add it to the HN guidelines.
Intellectual charity doesn't require accepting anything false. It means that when there are several reasonable interpretations, you should pick the strongest. This goes against the default tendency we all have, to pick the weakest to then have the pleasure of overturning it. That pleasure is strong—so strong that one may begin seeing idiots for it—and it overpowers the pleasures of curiosity, which is what we're going for.