In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents’ Genes Are in Competition - NYTimes.com

[jason]

My sister, Kelly, just sent me this really interesting article: In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents’ Genes Are in Competition - NYTimes.com

Two scientists, drawing on their own powers of observation and a creative reading of recent genetic findings, have published a sweeping theory of brain development that would change the way mental disorders like autism and schizophrenia are understood….

Their idea is, in broad outline, straightforward. Dr. Crespi and Dr. Badcock propose that an evolutionary tug of war between genes from the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg can, in effect, tip brain development in one of two ways. A strong bias toward the father pushes a developing brain along the autistic spectrum, toward a fascination with objects, patterns, mechanical systems, at the expense of social development. A bias toward the mother moves the growing brain along what the researchers call the psychotic spectrum, toward hypersensitivity to mood, their own and others’. This, according to the theory, increases a child’s risk of developing schizophrenia later on, as well as mood problems like bipolar disorder and depression.

In short: autism and schizophrenia represent opposite ends of a spectrum that includes most, if not all, psychiatric and developmental brain disorders. The theory has no use for psychiatry’s many separate categories for disorders, and it would give genetic findings an entirely new dimension.

I wonder if it is more all out war, vs competition, in my case.

Comments

Drive-by comment

[badbookworm.livejournal.com]

That sounds like nonsense to me. There are strong correlations, for example, between OCD and anxiety/depression. According to this theory, the opposite should be the case.

Re: Drive-by comment

[complicittheory.livejournal.com]

There you go. It is stupid and no one thinks it has any value whatsoever.

Re: Drive-by comment

[badbookworm.livejournal.com]

I'm terribly sorry, I didn't mean to offend. Sometimes I'm a bit too forthright in my views.

Re: Drive-by comment

[complicittheory.livejournal.com]

Na. Didn't offend, but I didn't know how to respond to it. I am also very skeptical about it. I am high functioning autistic, so I'm curious, but anything that sounds that 'simple' is really problematic, but it IS interesting.

Re: Drive-by comment

[badbookworm.livejournal.com]

I've volunteered with the Autism Team in the local Special Needs Teaching Service, so I'm very interested in this. It does seem to be true that higher levels of testosterone make a child more prone to autistic spectrum disorders (do you know Baron Cohen?), hence the much higher diagnostic rates in males. But this idea (the aticle you cited) seems a little too pat to me.

I did read an interesting paper recently that suggests that higher diagnostic rates overall can be attributed to women's lib - women with autistic tendencies are more able to find work in roles that suit those traits (computer services, for example) and are therefore more likely to meet mates there, who are also likely to have autistic traits...and so on.

Sorry to ramble - it's a subject dear to my heart. And I'm very glad I didn't offend!

Re: Drive-by comment

[complicittheory.livejournal.com]

Good that you volunteered! Knowing the little I know of science the easy answer is always an issue. I'm aware of much of the literature, but personally, I think that much of what I've learned is reductionist. At the same time, reading about how a german doctor has used bone marrow transplant to cure an aids patient (acknowledging that this may be a fluke) challenges my reticence regarding simplicity. the women's lib argument is both resonant and silly. And that's positive.

I feel, only from personal experience, that there is less of a deficiency than a difference... though an extreme one in come contexts. Both of my parents exhibit traits that are very much more explicit in me.

I've done a lot of work supporting people with special needs, and thought I've always thought I was different, I was positioned as the 'normal'. finding myself at the far far end of the scale has been interesting, to say the least. But I'm still skeptical of the entire program of the pathologicalization of human experience, especially in the context of the reductionistic program of western culture to limit the diversity of human expression... but that's my rant. No offense.