Autism hasn't increased(marginalrevolution.com)
marginalrevolution.com
Autism hasn't increased
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/01/autism-hasnt-increased.html
61 comments
> My father in law clearly has severe undiagnosed Autism. But he was a successful engineer
It's interesting how much the definition of "severe" Autism has changed in common language. Typically, someone with "severe Autism" would not be capable of holding down a complex job like engineering, let alone having a successful career and a family.
The families I know with severely autistic children (now young adults) are still working on basic self-sufficiency without a job or in one case basic verbalizations. So it's strange for me to see someone casually described as having "severe" autism but also having a successful engineering career and a family.
It's interesting how much the definition of "severe" Autism has changed in common language. Typically, someone with "severe Autism" would not be capable of holding down a complex job like engineering, let alone having a successful career and a family.
The families I know with severely autistic children (now young adults) are still working on basic self-sufficiency without a job or in one case basic verbalizations. So it's strange for me to see someone casually described as having "severe" autism but also having a successful engineering career and a family.
As an autistic who used to have a career and a family, and is now back to rocking back and forth on a chair unable to speak when any stress is applied, consider the possibility that it's “strange to you” because you don't know what you're talking about.
Did you do drugs on a monthly basis at any point in life?
i mean even what you describe pales compared to my neighbor (or some of my distant cousins), they simply cannot live by themselves. they cannot write, they cannot really speak, they cannot work or feed themselves (as middle aged adults). so i guess it depends on what you call severe.
I blame the DSM for this. DSM 5 merged multiple diagnostics into a single "autism spectrum disorder", which means that the average case of autism became more mild overnight. This moved where the boundary for "severe" autism is in people's heads.
I disagree. I don't think average people are influenced by DSM 5 definitions as much as they are by social media or TV shows.
The people I know in the medical field are becoming frustrated by how often parents bring their children in requesting an autism diagnosis when their child doesn't even begin to meet the current DSM definitions of autism. The social media version of autism has become its own separate entity.
This has caused a second-order effect where the severe ends of the autism spectrum are getting erased from public perception. It's really sad to encounter parents who think their child is autistic (diagnosed or not) who run into children who are severely autistic, as often they'll reflexively try to draw dividing lines between the severely autistic child and their own. It's sadly common to see these parents try to insist that "something else is wrong" with the severely autistic child because it's entirely different than what they've come to view as autism through their TikTok and Facebook groups.
The people I know in the medical field are becoming frustrated by how often parents bring their children in requesting an autism diagnosis when their child doesn't even begin to meet the current DSM definitions of autism. The social media version of autism has become its own separate entity.
This has caused a second-order effect where the severe ends of the autism spectrum are getting erased from public perception. It's really sad to encounter parents who think their child is autistic (diagnosed or not) who run into children who are severely autistic, as often they'll reflexively try to draw dividing lines between the severely autistic child and their own. It's sadly common to see these parents try to insist that "something else is wrong" with the severely autistic child because it's entirely different than what they've come to view as autism through their TikTok and Facebook groups.
I was diagnosed with Asperger's. Nowadays, I say I'm autistic. I don't see how this wouldn't skew the perception of people who know me to think that autism is a more mild condition than it used to be.
I disagreed about the part that the DSM 5 is to blame.
If you were diagnosed with one thing but decide to tell people you're diagnosed with something else, that difference doesn't appear to come from the DSM.
If you were diagnosed with one thing but decide to tell people you're diagnosed with something else, that difference doesn't appear to come from the DSM.
Asbergers is not a thing anymore. It has been folded into autism, which is now a broader diagnosis than it once was.
I'm sure the powers that be had a reason to combine them; and I am no where near qualified to have an opinion on if it was good idea or not. But expanding the definition of autism to include milder forms was 100% a choice that was made.
The fact that the public perception subsequently shifted to view autism as less severely disease seems to me to likely be causally related.
I'm sure the powers that be had a reason to combine them; and I am no where near qualified to have an opinion on if it was good idea or not. But expanding the definition of autism to include milder forms was 100% a choice that was made.
The fact that the public perception subsequently shifted to view autism as less severely disease seems to me to likely be causally related.
If someone is able to live independently and hold a stable job without psychiatric medication then we can't reasonably claim that they have a "severe" mental health condition. This applies to autism as well as any other condition.
There is always a social acceptability component to psychiatric diagnoses. It was not that long ago that homosexuality was classified as a disease.
Being less accepting of neurodiverse people being different is directly linked to greater need to diagnosing them as society does not accept their differences.
In some cases there is expert acknowledgement that some differences are not necessarily a bad thing. For example:
> It can be helpful to think of ADHD not just as a deficit or disorder but as a ‘difference’. Some people view some aspects of their ADHD as strengths in certain situations or environments:
https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mental-health/mental-illnesses-and...
Being less accepting of neurodiverse people being different is directly linked to greater need to diagnosing them as society does not accept their differences.
In some cases there is expert acknowledgement that some differences are not necessarily a bad thing. For example:
> It can be helpful to think of ADHD not just as a deficit or disorder but as a ‘difference’. Some people view some aspects of their ADHD as strengths in certain situations or environments:
https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mental-health/mental-illnesses-and...
What is "severe" in this case?
Not OP, but similar issue.
I have an in law that has severe autism issues that had a career and children. They never advanced in jobs, couldn't hold friendships, got neglected at work and kinda abused, got bad assignments. They were a lawyer for a long time, so the law itself was useful to them and their autism, but clients were hard. Their marriage was clearly strained the entire time before their spouse passed. It's been years and they still can't grieve or process the loss, likely due to the autism. Their children don't have these autistic issues, afaict, and those relationships are strained now that the grandkids are here and the children have leaned more about the issues of the grandparent.
Still, made a successful career of it, saved well enough into 401ks, and is now a millionaire.
In those days, their autism was just a quirk, one most people didn't like. And if they had help and strategies when younger, they would have been more successful and had a much better life.
I have an in law that has severe autism issues that had a career and children. They never advanced in jobs, couldn't hold friendships, got neglected at work and kinda abused, got bad assignments. They were a lawyer for a long time, so the law itself was useful to them and their autism, but clients were hard. Their marriage was clearly strained the entire time before their spouse passed. It's been years and they still can't grieve or process the loss, likely due to the autism. Their children don't have these autistic issues, afaict, and those relationships are strained now that the grandkids are here and the children have leaned more about the issues of the grandparent.
Still, made a successful career of it, saved well enough into 401ks, and is now a millionaire.
In those days, their autism was just a quirk, one most people didn't like. And if they had help and strategies when younger, they would have been more successful and had a much better life.
The example I often end up pointing to is the "rise" in left handedness [1]. It didn't actually increase. We simply stopped punishing people for it.
There have been seismic changes in the understanding of autism (and ADHD) over even the last 10-15 years, let alone 30-40+. Once autism was considered only for people who were largely or totally nonverbal. It was only in the 2010s that the consensus formed that people could have both ADHD and autism. They were previously considered to be exclusive.
I've heard many stories from teachers who, when faced with an autistic pupil, will play a game of sorts to see which parent has undiagnosed autism. With a modern understanding, it tends to be pretty easy to spot.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/s9x1ya/his...
There have been seismic changes in the understanding of autism (and ADHD) over even the last 10-15 years, let alone 30-40+. Once autism was considered only for people who were largely or totally nonverbal. It was only in the 2010s that the consensus formed that people could have both ADHD and autism. They were previously considered to be exclusive.
I've heard many stories from teachers who, when faced with an autistic pupil, will play a game of sorts to see which parent has undiagnosed autism. With a modern understanding, it tends to be pretty easy to spot.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/s9x1ya/his...
> teachers who, when faced with an autistic pupil, will play a game of sorts to see which parent has undiagnosed autism
Great, diagnosing people based on casual observations. Wasn’t friendly enough, not great eye contact, said something odd…must be autism.
Our tolerance for weirdos of all kinds seems to have gone both down and up at the same time. Why can’t they just be people who are a little unusual?
Great, diagnosing people based on casual observations. Wasn’t friendly enough, not great eye contact, said something odd…must be autism.
Our tolerance for weirdos of all kinds seems to have gone both down and up at the same time. Why can’t they just be people who are a little unusual?
>Great, diagnosing people based on casual observations. Wasn’t friendly enough, not great eye contact, said something odd…must be autism.
If it's done systematically and has predictive power, there's nothing wrong with that.
How else do you propose we diagnose something that doesn't show up in MRIs and bloodwork?
Or we could just as well dismiss any mental issues entirely, and say "if we can't measure it, it doesn't exist".
If it's done systematically and has predictive power, there's nothing wrong with that.
How else do you propose we diagnose something that doesn't show up in MRIs and bloodwork?
Or we could just as well dismiss any mental issues entirely, and say "if we can't measure it, it doesn't exist".
I, as a non-professional in the field, have no business diagnosing anybody based on casual interactions.
If I am at a party and I tell my friends “that weird person I just met is pretty autistic,” I am not diagnosing them, I am just saying something speculative behind their back.
If I am at a party and I tell my friends “that weird person I just met is pretty autistic,” I am not diagnosing them, I am just saying something speculative behind their back.
>I, as a non-professional in the field, have no business diagnosing anybody based on casual interactions.
That's fine, because professionals don't diagnose people officially based on "casual interactions" either, nor they do that at parties.
They have systematic scripts to go through and structured interactions. That's because diagnosing is official business and must have a higher standard plus tests and paperwork to cover your ass.
Ignoring that, whether a professional or not, if you know what to look for, it's pretty easy to tell if someone is autistic by talking to them at a social context, with way better than chance accuracy (meaning aspie autistic - for asd 2 or 3 it's way more self-evident than that even).
That's fine, because professionals don't diagnose people officially based on "casual interactions" either, nor they do that at parties.
They have systematic scripts to go through and structured interactions. That's because diagnosing is official business and must have a higher standard plus tests and paperwork to cover your ass.
Ignoring that, whether a professional or not, if you know what to look for, it's pretty easy to tell if someone is autistic by talking to them at a social context, with way better than chance accuracy (meaning aspie autistic - for asd 2 or 3 it's way more self-evident than that even).
> with way better than chance accuracy
How do you measure the accuracy of your guess?
How do you measure the accuracy of your guess?
More often than not, the subjects reveal their diagnoses themselves at a later point.
If you have guessed correctly from before the reveal for many different individuals, you can pat yourself on the back.
For those that don't reveal or might not even have a diagnosis or be aware they could be, a pile up of additional (unrelated to the initial impression) diagnostically consistent behaviors and mannerisms as you get to know them over time is also a good enough confirmation for use outside of a clinical setting.
In general, even the average non-trained or unfamiliar with the specific traits neurotypical person is good at this identification even subconsciously, they just don't know what exactly they're identifying (so pit it as "weird", "offputting" etc):
(...) across three studies, we find that first impressions of individuals with ASD made from thin slices of real-world social behavior by typically-developing observers are not only far less favorable across a range of trait judgments compared to controls, but also are associated with reduced intentions to pursue social interaction. These patterns are remarkably robust, occur within seconds, do not change with increased exposure, and persist across both child and adult age groups
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28145411/
Even photographs will do it:
"… a static image was sufficient for generating negative first impressions of those with ASD. (...) In contrast, first impressions of TD [typically developing] controls improved with the addition of a visual information, suggesting that unlike the ASD group, visual cues helped rather than hurt the impressions they made on observers."
If you have guessed correctly from before the reveal for many different individuals, you can pat yourself on the back.
For those that don't reveal or might not even have a diagnosis or be aware they could be, a pile up of additional (unrelated to the initial impression) diagnostically consistent behaviors and mannerisms as you get to know them over time is also a good enough confirmation for use outside of a clinical setting.
In general, even the average non-trained or unfamiliar with the specific traits neurotypical person is good at this identification even subconsciously, they just don't know what exactly they're identifying (so pit it as "weird", "offputting" etc):
(...) across three studies, we find that first impressions of individuals with ASD made from thin slices of real-world social behavior by typically-developing observers are not only far less favorable across a range of trait judgments compared to controls, but also are associated with reduced intentions to pursue social interaction. These patterns are remarkably robust, occur within seconds, do not change with increased exposure, and persist across both child and adult age groups
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28145411/
Even photographs will do it:
"… a static image was sufficient for generating negative first impressions of those with ASD. (...) In contrast, first impressions of TD [typically developing] controls improved with the addition of a visual information, suggesting that unlike the ASD group, visual cues helped rather than hurt the impressions they made on observers."
"Play a game of sorts" doesn't sound either systematic or predictive. Are they referring both parents to clinicians to check if the prediction from their "game" was correct, or just using it for water cooler fodder?
>"Play a game of sorts" doesn't sound either systematic or predictive
Because the diagnostic process is reduced to that? Or because the layman's conception of what "sounds systematic or predictive" is the correct one?
Because the diagnostic process is reduced to that? Or because the layman's conception of what "sounds systematic or predictive" is the correct one?
[deleted]
I can look at a politician or a CEO or just someone I encounter in life and see autism (or not), narcissism, sociopathy or any number of other conditions. Is this a diagnosis? No. But it's part of my mental model for dealing with such people. I'm not sure why you played the faux offense card at people making casual observations.
It's also clear to anyone who pays attention that there is a genetic link with autism and it doesn't take much to see it.
More deeply, you rcomment reads as a typical neurotypical response (or possibly internalized ableism from someone who isn't diagnozed but probably should be). There is a real safety issue here because autistic people can spot the neurotypical vs neurodivergent difference pretty darn quickly and have come to realize that neurotypical people are a real threat, particularly in the job market.
And if you still don't think neurodivergent people can spot neurotypical people, what about the reaction autistic people get from allistic people? Allistic people tend to instinctively dislike, distrust or even bully autistic people from the moment they meet them. They create conditions where autistic people have a harder time in the workplace, are less likely to get promoted and more likely to be fired or forced to quit.
And you still think it isn't obvious?
It's also clear to anyone who pays attention that there is a genetic link with autism and it doesn't take much to see it.
More deeply, you rcomment reads as a typical neurotypical response (or possibly internalized ableism from someone who isn't diagnozed but probably should be). There is a real safety issue here because autistic people can spot the neurotypical vs neurodivergent difference pretty darn quickly and have come to realize that neurotypical people are a real threat, particularly in the job market.
And if you still don't think neurodivergent people can spot neurotypical people, what about the reaction autistic people get from allistic people? Allistic people tend to instinctively dislike, distrust or even bully autistic people from the moment they meet them. They create conditions where autistic people have a harder time in the workplace, are less likely to get promoted and more likely to be fired or forced to quit.
And you still think it isn't obvious?
You’re making a lot of assumptions, and without going into detail, you couldn’t be farther off about my personal experience.
The point of TFA is that the mild/borderline diagnosis rate has exploded. So apparently those professionally tasked with diagnosis now see autism where they used to not see it. But now we have self-styled autism spotters out there labeling people definitively based on tweets.
Even in your response you said my response was neurotypical, OR undiagnosed atypical. You don’t see the irony?
The point of TFA is that the mild/borderline diagnosis rate has exploded. So apparently those professionally tasked with diagnosis now see autism where they used to not see it. But now we have self-styled autism spotters out there labeling people definitively based on tweets.
Even in your response you said my response was neurotypical, OR undiagnosed atypical. You don’t see the irony?
Ok, so you're a "autism is overdiagnosed" Andy, in your own words. That likely puts you in the NT camp so you should probably sit this one out as you have absolutely no idea what impact autism has on people's lives.
I don't think I've ever seen someone diagnosed with autism who turned around and said "it's not a big deal". It always, always, always has a profound impact on understanding the trauma and difficulties they've suffered their entire lives.
These are people who once wore labels like "being a nerd" or simply "being introverted" when their brains were wired in such a way as to be at a severe disadvantage in an allistic world. There were answers to why they had few friends in school, were likely bullied, had difficulties getting and keeping jobs and had problems maintaining social relationships. These are people who sought out (or were forced into) jobs where social connections didn't matter (as much). These are people who were told their team in the office was "like a family" but were somehow always excluded and were told they were being difficult for asking qualifying questions on tasks or simply pointing out how something was doomed to failure.
What autistic people learn is that allistic people are dangerous and needy because they demand conformance to unwritten rules, who will talk about rules while ignoring them when convenient, who will talk about consistency while having none of it and will talk about morality while discarding it in a heartbeat.
It is the most allistic trait ever to simply dismiss all this as "overdiagnosis".
I don't think I've ever seen someone diagnosed with autism who turned around and said "it's not a big deal". It always, always, always has a profound impact on understanding the trauma and difficulties they've suffered their entire lives.
These are people who once wore labels like "being a nerd" or simply "being introverted" when their brains were wired in such a way as to be at a severe disadvantage in an allistic world. There were answers to why they had few friends in school, were likely bullied, had difficulties getting and keeping jobs and had problems maintaining social relationships. These are people who sought out (or were forced into) jobs where social connections didn't matter (as much). These are people who were told their team in the office was "like a family" but were somehow always excluded and were told they were being difficult for asking qualifying questions on tasks or simply pointing out how something was doomed to failure.
What autistic people learn is that allistic people are dangerous and needy because they demand conformance to unwritten rules, who will talk about rules while ignoring them when convenient, who will talk about consistency while having none of it and will talk about morality while discarding it in a heartbeat.
It is the most allistic trait ever to simply dismiss all this as "overdiagnosis".
Not to mention smartphones and vertical videos that weaponized parental neglect.
Skimming this it is a shocker to see the author citing Jordan Lasker (Cremieux) without even some sort of disclaimer.
Lasker has repeatedly falsified results, given some feigned apology or redirection and continued the practice of falsifying results.
Lasker has repeatedly falsified results, given some feigned apology or redirection and continued the practice of falsifying results.
Marginal Revolution is a watering hole for all sorts of oddballs, some of them benign, some of them not so much. Lasker and Sailer are examples of the latter kind. In Lasker's case, you kind of have to be "read in" to know what their deal is, so it's not surprising to see them quoted without any context. That context is probably not relevant to what Tabarrok is talking about anyways.
Marginal Revolution is basically just cherry picking data to fit whatever narrative is convenient.
Every public-intellectual economist gets accused of that. I don't take anything they say on faith and I don't regularly read MR because the scene around it is icky, but I also don't reflexively assume they're wrong about everything. Tabarrok and Cowen are not stupid.
[deleted]
Skimming the comments it is a shocker to see people attacking Jordan Lasker (Cremieux) without even some sort of link to more context.
That's fair. He's a prominent figure on Twitter who posts a lot of charts and graphs on different and often benign subjects which get shared around a lot. It's not until you follow him that you realize his core obsession is promoting ideas about race and IQ in broad strokes. For example, singling out ethnic groups as intellectually inferior or more likely to commit crime. He has a history of posting misleading or falsified charts or data if their convenient to his agenda.
If you go deeper, his old Reddit account under a pseudonym was discovered to be a little more mask-off than his Twitter personality. From Wikipedia:
> between 2014 and 2016 Lasker had made many anti-Semitic and racist posts on Reddit under the pseudonym Faliceer.[7] In 2016, the account Faliceer self-identified as a "Jewish White Supremacist Nazi". He also wished Adolf Hitler a happy birthday, promoted eugenics and attacked interracial relationships.
If you go deeper, his old Reddit account under a pseudonym was discovered to be a little more mask-off than his Twitter personality. From Wikipedia:
> between 2014 and 2016 Lasker had made many anti-Semitic and racist posts on Reddit under the pseudonym Faliceer.[7] In 2016, the account Faliceer self-identified as a "Jewish White Supremacist Nazi". He also wished Adolf Hitler a happy birthday, promoted eugenics and attacked interracial relationships.
But, the above poster said he falsified results. Is that true? I had some LLMs search, but they couldn't find anything.
I don't know about "falsified results", that's a pretty strong phrasing, but here's an interesting story about research Lasker presented on Twitter, by David Bessis:
https://davidbessis.substack.com/p/twins-reared-apart-do-not...
https://davidbessis.substack.com/p/twins-reared-apart-do-not...
None of you are evidencing your claims that he's unreliable. You just keep repeating it, even after being asked for specifics they other people cannot find.
It seems more likely from these posts that Lasker is actually accurate but you can't handle true claims about IQ and race, so have unilaterally decided those must be fake because they undermines a left wing world view. But group differences in IQ are a very strong and well replicated result. There is nothing unreliable about those. Until you bring receipts we have to assume you are engaging in ad hominem for ideological reasons.
It seems more likely from these posts that Lasker is actually accurate but you can't handle true claims about IQ and race, so have unilaterally decided those must be fake because they undermines a left wing world view. But group differences in IQ are a very strong and well replicated result. There is nothing unreliable about those. Until you bring receipts we have to assume you are engaging in ad hominem for ideological reasons.
Well said :)
If only we lived in an era of instantly-available information easily accessed through ubiquitous supercomputers that we have in our homes and in our pockets.
oh, wait: https://lmddgtfy.net/?q=Jordan%20Lasker
oh, wait: https://lmddgtfy.net/?q=Jordan%20Lasker
For those who don’t know, Cremieux is a prolific Twitter poster. He posts a lot of graphs and charts and presents himself as purely objective and data driven, but follow him for a while and you’ll start to see he’s highly politically motivated and will pretend to be completely blind to any data that disagrees with his agenda.
He has become a popular figure in the “rationalist” community which this blog (Marginal Revolution) belongs to, so you won’t find criticisms within this sphere.
Cremieux is the type of poster who posts 90% accurate information to build trust and then slips in 10% agenda-pushing material. If you’re not paying close attention or following people who will debunk him, it all looks equally scientific. He was highly active during the last election with political claims and data that were easily debunked or shown to be taken out of context.
He’s also a big proponent of buying GLP-1 peptides from questionable sources and mixing your own injections, which he advertises broadly but then puts his “guides” behind a paywall as a source of income. Because he profits from subscriptions to his guides, he has a huge conflict of interest when explaining the safety of buying these underground peptides and mixing your own injections, but he’s held up as a source of scientific truth for how completely safe it is by people who don’t recognize his conflict of interest.
He has become a popular figure in the “rationalist” community which this blog (Marginal Revolution) belongs to, so you won’t find criticisms within this sphere.
Cremieux is the type of poster who posts 90% accurate information to build trust and then slips in 10% agenda-pushing material. If you’re not paying close attention or following people who will debunk him, it all looks equally scientific. He was highly active during the last election with political claims and data that were easily debunked or shown to be taken out of context.
He’s also a big proponent of buying GLP-1 peptides from questionable sources and mixing your own injections, which he advertises broadly but then puts his “guides” behind a paywall as a source of income. Because he profits from subscriptions to his guides, he has a huge conflict of interest when explaining the safety of buying these underground peptides and mixing your own injections, but he’s held up as a source of scientific truth for how completely safe it is by people who don’t recognize his conflict of interest.
Graphs and charts are the best way to lie.
And if someone is a prolific poster of them, there's always an agenda.
And if someone is a prolific poster of them, there's always an agenda.
He's also a main character in white supremacist Twitter, for whatever that's worth.
Whatever the deal is, he's probably not wrong about autism.
Whatever the deal is, he's probably not wrong about autism.
> Whatever the deal is, he's probably not wrong about autism.
I agree, but it’s worth pointing out that this is kind of his whole schtick: Most of the topics he posts about are probably objectively based and generally accurate. He uses this to build trust before slipping in the bananas claims about immigrants, race/IQ stuff, and other political topics, or when it comes time to sell followers on subscriptions to his GLP-1 guides (which do not contain any information you couldn’t find freely from numerous other sources)
I agree, but it’s worth pointing out that this is kind of his whole schtick: Most of the topics he posts about are probably objectively based and generally accurate. He uses this to build trust before slipping in the bananas claims about immigrants, race/IQ stuff, and other political topics, or when it comes time to sell followers on subscriptions to his GLP-1 guides (which do not contain any information you couldn’t find freely from numerous other sources)
I agree that's the dynamic but I don't think it's useful to call him out for the accurate stuff, since, again, I think you really have to be paying attention to "that part of Twitter" (you and I apparently both do so for oppositional reasons) to know what's going on here.
Lasker won't make you wait long before bringing the racist stuff out!
Lasker won't make you wait long before bringing the racist stuff out!
This seems fairly consistent with deep, accomplished experts in any field or craft - their competencies in one area don't necessarily translate well into validity anywhere else laterally or even vertically. This seems extremely obvious even for typically "smart" people such as doctors, lawyers, engineers because among many folks I know scamming these white collar professionals out of money by feeding into their egotism is basically how they make their living. While I don't think we should fence people into professional castes or anything like that but in the modern age of AI and charisma-based validity / authority healthy skepticism seems like a requisite to not be suckered into modern infomercial quackery.
> This seems fairly consistent with deep, accomplished experts in any field or craft - their competencies in one area don't necessarily translate well into validity anywhere else laterally or even vertically.
With this person, his core area of pseudo-research has been the race/IQ generalizations. He has a long history of eugenics content and his Reddit posts engage in Nazi stuff.
He jumps into popular topics like autism statistics to ride those trends on Twitter and expand his reach. Once you follow him, you realize it’s a steady drip of the lightly disguised eugenics stuff that has been his core focus for a long time.
With this person, his core area of pseudo-research has been the race/IQ generalizations. He has a long history of eugenics content and his Reddit posts engage in Nazi stuff.
He jumps into popular topics like autism statistics to ride those trends on Twitter and expand his reach. Once you follow him, you realize it’s a steady drip of the lightly disguised eugenics stuff that has been his core focus for a long time.
It's marginalrevolution.com, what does one expect?
Original paper: "Trends Over Time in the Prevalence of Autism by Adaptive and Intellectual Functioning Levels" - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aur.70167
Abstract: "The autistic community is a large, growing, and heterogeneous population, and there is a need for improved methods to describe their diverse needs. Measures of adaptive functioning collected through public health surveillance may provide valuable information on functioning and support needs at a population level. We aimed to use adaptive behavior and cognitive scores abstracted from health and educational records to describe trends over time in the population prevalence of autism by adaptive level and co-occurrence of intellectual disability (ID). Using data from the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, years 2000 to 2016, we estimated the prevalence of autism per 1000 8-year-old children by four levels of adaptive challenges (moderate to profound, mild, borderline, or none) and by co-occurrence of ID. The prevalence of autism with mild, borderline, or no significant adaptive challenges increased between 2000 and 2016, from 5.1 per 1000 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6–5.5) to 17.6 (95% CI: 17.1–18.1) while the prevalence of autism with moderate to profound challenges decreased slightly, from 1.5 (95% CI: 1.2–1.7) to 1.2 (95% CI: 1.1–1.4). The prevalence increase was greater for autism without co-occurring ID than for autism with co-occurring ID. The increase in autism prevalence between 2000 and 2016 was confined to autism with milder phenotypes. This trend could indicate improved identification of milder forms of autism over time. It is possible that increased access to therapies that improve intellectual and adaptive functioning of children diagnosed with autism also contributed to the trends."
Abstract: "The autistic community is a large, growing, and heterogeneous population, and there is a need for improved methods to describe their diverse needs. Measures of adaptive functioning collected through public health surveillance may provide valuable information on functioning and support needs at a population level. We aimed to use adaptive behavior and cognitive scores abstracted from health and educational records to describe trends over time in the population prevalence of autism by adaptive level and co-occurrence of intellectual disability (ID). Using data from the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, years 2000 to 2016, we estimated the prevalence of autism per 1000 8-year-old children by four levels of adaptive challenges (moderate to profound, mild, borderline, or none) and by co-occurrence of ID. The prevalence of autism with mild, borderline, or no significant adaptive challenges increased between 2000 and 2016, from 5.1 per 1000 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6–5.5) to 17.6 (95% CI: 17.1–18.1) while the prevalence of autism with moderate to profound challenges decreased slightly, from 1.5 (95% CI: 1.2–1.7) to 1.2 (95% CI: 1.1–1.4). The prevalence increase was greater for autism without co-occurring ID than for autism with co-occurring ID. The increase in autism prevalence between 2000 and 2016 was confined to autism with milder phenotypes. This trend could indicate improved identification of milder forms of autism over time. It is possible that increased access to therapies that improve intellectual and adaptive functioning of children diagnosed with autism also contributed to the trends."
The All-In pod was talking about this on their latest episode. In 2018 Minnesota had $3M in Medicaid Autism claims. In 2023 that number rose to $400M! That’s a 13233% increase in 5 years. Nothing suspicious about that at all.
Source: https://youtu.be/bhpd4NeTbCI Timestamp @25m : 20s
Source: https://youtu.be/bhpd4NeTbCI Timestamp @25m : 20s
Might have something to do with 2019 being the year that insurers were mandated to cover care for autism, but yes also there are fraudsters heading to jail for taking advantage.
https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/06/18/feds-investigating-...
https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/06/18/feds-investigating-...
The website is
https://marginalrevolution.com/about
Whose founders are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Tabarrok and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Cowen
Tabarrok " In 2012, journalist David Brooks called Tabarrok one of the most influential bloggers on the political right, writing that he is among those who "start from broadly libertarian premises but do not apply them in a doctrinaire way."[6] "
Cowen " Cowen’s work spans economics, philosophy, and cultural commentary. He is known for advocating a pragmatic form of libertarianism that emphasizes strong governance, economic dynamism, and technological progress—an approach he terms state capacity libertarianism.[3] In 2011, he was included in Foreign Policy’s list of the “Top 100 Global Thinkers,” and Prospect magazine ranked him among the world’s most influential economists in 2023.[4][5] "
Those people and this blog is not at all a scientific institution, editor, publisher.
And as mentioned in another comment, the person we're invited to read from Crémieux ("Earlier Cremieux showed exactly the same thing based on data from Sweden and earlier CDC data."). " He was a speaker at the 2024 Manifest conference. Eugenicist Jonathan Anomaly was also a speaker.[2] Lasker has spoken out in favor of natalism.[2][14] Early in 2025, Lasker was a speaker at the Natal Conference, which has been criticized for including speakers promoting far-right ideologies such as Raw Egg Nationalist.[2][15] "
---
Those people are not scientists, they cosplay knowledge and scientific process and will use data to serve their narratives.
Yet another example that the info shared here in HN are vastly influenced by some angry teenagers with some kind of libertarian edgelord imperialist agenda. I mean, I'm assuming that's what they imagine they think between two games of League of Legends or wanking to deepfakes
Whose founders are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Tabarrok and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Cowen
Tabarrok " In 2012, journalist David Brooks called Tabarrok one of the most influential bloggers on the political right, writing that he is among those who "start from broadly libertarian premises but do not apply them in a doctrinaire way."[6] "
Cowen " Cowen’s work spans economics, philosophy, and cultural commentary. He is known for advocating a pragmatic form of libertarianism that emphasizes strong governance, economic dynamism, and technological progress—an approach he terms state capacity libertarianism.[3] In 2011, he was included in Foreign Policy’s list of the “Top 100 Global Thinkers,” and Prospect magazine ranked him among the world’s most influential economists in 2023.[4][5] "
Those people and this blog is not at all a scientific institution, editor, publisher.
And as mentioned in another comment, the person we're invited to read from Crémieux ("Earlier Cremieux showed exactly the same thing based on data from Sweden and earlier CDC data."). " He was a speaker at the 2024 Manifest conference. Eugenicist Jonathan Anomaly was also a speaker.[2] Lasker has spoken out in favor of natalism.[2][14] Early in 2025, Lasker was a speaker at the Natal Conference, which has been criticized for including speakers promoting far-right ideologies such as Raw Egg Nationalist.[2][15] "
---
Those people are not scientists, they cosplay knowledge and scientific process and will use data to serve their narratives.
Yet another example that the info shared here in HN are vastly influenced by some angry teenagers with some kind of libertarian edgelord imperialist agenda. I mean, I'm assuming that's what they imagine they think between two games of League of Legends or wanking to deepfakes
I find Lasker repellant and am wary of Tabarrok and even I think you need to dial this back a bit. Tabarrok and Cowen are both research professors of economics at GMU. It's no surprise people pay attention to research they call out.
GMU econ and Tyler in particular are not truth-seeking academics anymore
Most comments here are bashing the author and reference, not the material. Applied to a left-leaning professor (is: Chomsky) would be an interesting thought experiment.
I think one of the paradoxes of our age is that we are overtly more accepting of different lifestyles while being less accepting of personalities faults. Having low EQ has always been a thing and yet in the social media era we've been very comfortable ostracizing those who suffer.