A human-accelerated neuron type potentially underlying autism in humans

Interpretation of the paper’s claim

• Several commenters note a key ambiguity:
  • Individual-level reading: “more IQ in a person → more autism” (tradeoff with social intelligence).
  • Population-level reading: human brain evolution that enabled modern cognition also produced vulnerability to autism.
• The thread converges that the paper argues the latter: an evolutionary trade-off at species level, not that autistic individuals are generally more intelligent.

Autism, intelligence, and trade-offs

• Some argue there’s a tradeoff between “hard reality” focus and social intelligence, claiming many people sacrifice facts for social harmony, while autistic people are more likely to insist on reality.
• Others dispute this as oversimplified:
  • Social realities are part of “hard reality”; soft skills are crucial to effective science and teamwork.
  • Highly intelligent people can also be highly socially adept; examples from academia are cited.
• Commenters suggest most human problems are low-intelligence thresholds problems where goals and social context matter more than raw IQ.

Spectrum, diagnosis, and masking

• Multiple posts stress that autism is not a simple low→high scalar; it’s a “grab bag” / multidimensional space of traits.
• “High functioning” is criticized as a way to dismiss needs of people who mask well, especially women and girls, who are often underdiagnosed.
• Masking is described as “doing social behavior in software instead of hardware,” with large private costs.
• There is no blood test for autism; some genetic markers and antibodies exist but cover only subsets of cases.

Labels, politics, and eugenics concerns

• Strong debate over broad use of the autism label:
  • One side sees autism as a “fad” or “vanity diagnosis” absorbing many distinct conditions and distorting resources.
  • Others counter that autism is a serious, often lifelong disability, historically suffered in silence, and that increased awareness is not a fad.
• Asperger’s label is discussed:
  • Some miss the distinction between “smart Aspies” and more impaired autistics.
  • Others emphasize it was removed partly because of its Nazi-eugenics origins and because autism is not “more vs less,” but different configurations of difficulties.
• Concerns are raised about misdiagnosis and other under-recognized conditions (e.g., schizotypy) being overshadowed by the “autism epidemic.”

Sex differences and underdiagnosis

• Boys are diagnosed ~4:1 over girls; commenters mention:
  • Greater male variability hypotheses (X-chromosome effects).
  • Girls’ better masking and more “socially acceptable” fixations making symptoms less visible.
• Debate continues on whether fewer symptoms mean “less autistic” or just better-compensated.

Evolution, selection, and fertility

• Several tie the paper to broader evolutionary dynamics:
  • Autism (and possibly schizotypy) framed as side effects of selection on specific neuron types that enhanced human cognition but increased vulnerability.
  • Others note ongoing selection in modern humans via fertility differences, though there’s disagreement on how intelligence and wealth relate to reproductive success.
• Some commenters liken autism and other neurotypes to different “loss functions” or temperatures in a neural net: alternative cognitive styles emerging from how brains are tuned.

Lived experience and social cost

• Autistic commenters describe:
  • Being perceived as “next evolution” in tech circles versus experiencing autism as a heavy cost: loneliness, social exclusion, unexplained hostility.
  • Long, expensive diagnostic journeys; masking that fools professionals; and the relief of finally having an explanation.
• There’s recurring tension between romanticizing autism as “genius-adjacent” and recognizing severe, often invisible disability.