Pseudologic of Genetic Predictions

An acquaintance of mine just wrote an interesting piece titled It’s Time to Stop Pouring Research Money Down the Genetic Sinkhole which alludes to an undeserved faith people have in the predictive power of genetics.

Although autism is becoming more widely understood as a neural difference, not a “psychiatric disorder,” it is one of the profiles that is subject to this intense witch hunt. In his article [Five Decades of Gene Finding Failures in Psychiatry], [Jay Joseph] mentions autism in passing, as an example of one of the many areas where genetic research has been a failure.
[...]
But the problem is larger than that. Science understands (if one can even be so generous as to use that word) a very tiny fraction of the human genome. Most research to date has focused on the 1% or so of DNA that codes for proteins (i.e. has the genetic instructions for making the proteins that constitute the human body). The other 99% remains pretty much a complete mystery, although progress is starting to be made in analyzing that. The ENCODE project (ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements) is still very much in its infancy.

Conditions (defined by behavioral observation) may correlate with certain genetic markers, but if we only observe the genetic markers how well does it predict these other conditions?

The fact is science is not a perfectly deterministic system.  Randomness and uncertainty affect all observations/measurements.  As such, we are stuck dealing with conditional probabilities.  Trying to exactly equate these logical propositions is inherently flawed and likely to fall victim to the Base Rate Fallacy.

(found this on Facebook)

Basically you are looking at the overlap of the events, e.g. Pr(moon & chicken) or Pr(autism etc. & genetics), and the proportion of that joint probability to that of the single event you condition upon; whatever serves as the predictor.

Few people have been to the moon so that is a rare event that greatly overlaps (or is encompassed by) chicken-eating.  Flipping it around (via Bayes' Theorem) we see a ton of people have eaten chicken but only a tiny few have ever been to the moon, therefore chicken-eating is not a good predictor.

For those who are more mathematically inclined:
Pr(A|B) "probability of observing A, given B has occurred or is known"

Genetic researches must assess the prevalence of these so-called markers in the general population.  Otherwise the strength/validity of the observed associations is highly suspect.

Taken to an extreme, we see the dystopian future depicted in the film GATTACA (one of my favorites).  Everything is the product of extreme eugenics engineering.  Anyone conceived in the old-fashioned way is an "Invalid."  I find this scene very poignant where this detective is speaking to the director about exceeding potential:

(At 1:25)
"No one exceeds his potential"
"If he did?"
"It would simply mean we did not accurately gauge his potential in the first place."

This big admission of their methods' fallibility really struck me.  You can never absolutely gauge potential. It's impossible. Measurement is an inherently flawed process. In my line of study, we try to design measurements/tests that are reliable but we have to account for the uncertainty from random error. We try to increase reliability by minimizing error but no measurement is perfect as that would require infinite precision.  If someone's job or life is at stake, you better have some strong evidence. The people in Gattaca were overconfident in the scope of their measurements and ignored the inherent limits of the information.

Even Edward Thorndike, one of the pioneers of psychological measurement, acknowledged that such tests are imperfect and were never meant to be an absolute prediction of your station in life (unlike his contemporary Lewis Terman):

"On the other hand to assume that we have measured some general power which resides in him and determines his ability in every variety of intellectual task in its entirety is to fly directly in the face of all that is known about the organization of intellect." (p. 126)

Thorndike, Edward L. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium--I. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(3), 124-127. [pdf]

All autists are equal, but some are more equal than others

I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with the so-called Autism Community.  It started last year when I wrote in this blog a post that got a ton of backlash.  I felt discouraged from writing since then.  Many of the readers/commenters grossly misinterpreted my ideas.  They thought I was advocating being passive in the face of abuse when actually I was talking about the need to be mindful of our speech/actions so that we are not contributing to the number of enemies and negative public perception.  For an analogy, imagine fighting a raging fire.  You must be able to contain or slow its spread.  If it grows larger, faster than you can gather/apply water you will never put it out.  That is a mathematical certainty. 

I think there is this notion that autistics are pure, innocent victims of unjust persecution so any hint of blame is seen as outrageous.  While it’s not exactly a war of our own making, it’s worth pointing out the part we can play towards breeding and prolonging conflict.  You can’t advocate for being viewed as comptetent/intelligent but ignore accountability.

I have seen a quite a bit of vitriol, rhetoric, and venom spewed forth by my peers.  That is what I wanted to caution against when I wrote Don’t Make Enemies.  Ironically, that is just what happened in the ensuing “discussions.”  Lydia Brown (author of Autistic Hoya), remarked:

Today, I am very disappointed in many of my friends and in myself.
I posted a link on Friday to a blog post by a friend, which at first generated mostly thoughtful and interesting discussion about its content. The discussion rapidly devolved over the last two days into name-calling, swearing […] and finally, actual physical threats […]
Almost every single person who participated in the "discussion" is Autistic. (I can only think of one person who wasn't offhand.) This saddens me, because while I personally took great issue with many of the things that were written in the original blog post to which I had linked, this fact more than proved many of the observations that its author made about vitriolic rhetoric. The world is watching us, and if all the world sees is that Autistic people are incapable of mature, calm, and respectful dialogue (and respectful doesn't have to mean "polite" or "denying problems exist" or talking to people who actually want to hurt you) amongst ourselves, never mind with the public, then we will NEVER be listened to and our ideas will NEVER be taken seriously.
April 15 at 4:07pm

And yet I was met with accusations of being the "tone police”, engaging in lateral oppression, and unfairly derailing arguments.  First off, lateral oppression is an absurd notion since if we're truly peers, by definition I don't have any power or authority over you.  Of course an argument should be judged by its merits (e.g. coherence) but there are tons of logical fallacies and possible errors in reasoning.  Pointing them out is necessary in debate/discourse.  However I’ve noticed many instances of someone crying 'derail!' as merely a plea to ignore the faults in their arguments and drop the counterargument(s).  Ironically, that would be an actual derail.

I get the sense that arguments that don’t toe the party line are taboo.  It's a slippery slope from dissent to thought-crime if we arbitrarily judge who is a REAL autistic advocate and what they *should* say.

This idea of an Autism Community is a farce.  It’s about as united as the United States.  What we have is a bunch of people who are angry (somewhat justly), highly opinionated, thin-skinned, and hegemonic.  Chained together by a common label “autism” but pulling in different directions and bickering about where to go and what to do.  Except, there is no one right direction.  It’s erroneous because while the symptoms may appear to be superficially similar, in all likelihood these are different underlying conditions with varying challenges and needs that are not being met by perpetuating a false equivalence.

Don't Make Enemies

I was driving across the USA on a family vacation while I was reading John Elder Robison’s book Be Different that I came across this pearl of wisdom.

Learn to coexist peacefully. Even if you can’t make friends, don’t make enemies.  

Don’t tease, torment, or provoke other people. Don’t be a bully yourself.

Try to understand the other person, and by doing so, make a peaceful connection.

He was writing about his own experience with bullies.  It reminded me of my father’s advice about “picking your battles” but it also struck me how similar this is to Aikido’s philosophy of non-aggression.  Suddenly I had an epiphany and the phrase “don’t make enemies” inspired a new outlook on peace and conflict resolution.

In the Art of Peace we never attack. An attack is proof that one is out of control. Never run away from any kind of challenge, but do not try to suppress or control an opponent unnaturally. Let attackers come any way they like and then blend with them. Never chase after opponents. Redirect each attack and get firmly behind it. 

-- Morihei Ueshiba, The Art of Peace

 This is apparent in the physical technique of Aikido.  As an attacker reaches to grab or strike we blend with the motion so that they over extend and put themselves off balance.  When they are in a weak position, it is simple to apply a technique to redirect, control, disarm, or immobilize them. 

 The blending (“aiki”) is important to reduce the attacker’s power and not give him anything to resist.  In contrast, hitting back creates tension and feeds into the cycle of violence.

Conflict can take many forms (weapons, fists, words, etc.).  I believe it’s important for those who practice the way of advocacy to employ techniques to bring harmony.  The Autistic community is such a small minority and we are greatly outnumbered.  We cannot achieve our goals with mere force.  

Our success will depend on how many people we can convince to support us and the justice of our cause.  There is a great many people who are generally unaware of autism.  I view them as an untapped resource.  It will take a gentle, respectful approach to cultivate and not spoil them.

I’m a little disappointed by the tone I’ve seen in many writings and dialogue by my peers.  I have seen a lot of inflammatory rhetoric and I fear that is counterproductive to the message.  Language that may insult the audience will not bring them closer to your point. Rather, it will turn them away, incite stronger opposition, alienate potential allies, and possibly lose current ones.

I can't claim to know others' motivations but I suspect the fallacy of the false dilemma.  Rigid, black-or-white thinking is common among autists but sometimes it doesn't fit the situation.  It’s a naïve way of thinking to believe everyone is either with you or against you.  Ignoring the possibility of neutrality makes you overestimate the real number of enemies and puts excessive stress on yourself.

I urge my fellow advocates to take a step back and think about these principles.  In short, “don’t make enemies” means we must increase the number of our allies while keeping constant (or reducing) the number of our enemies. 

The Way of a Warrior, the Art of Politics, is to stop trouble before it starts. It consists in defeating your adversaries spiritually by making them realize the folly of their actions. The Way of a Warrior is to establish harmony.

Debut

Welcome to my new blog.  I am a 27 year old autistic graduate student that's decided to join my brethren who engage in advocacy and blogging.  My official diagnosis is Asperger's Syndrome.  This is often described as "mild" or "high-functioning" autism, but there are problems with such labels.


There is immense variability in the expression/symptoms of autism (both in kind and degree).  The clinical term 'Autism Spectrum Disorders' (ASD) presumes one continuous, ordered dimension of variability that, frankly, I think fails to describe the reality of the situation (see above quote by George Box).


I honestly believe autism is a multi-faceted condition (you're born with) that arises from the neurological structure of the brain.  As a statistician, I am interested in identifying and measuring the multiple underlying attributes so we can design and evaluate treatments/therapies tailored to the specific needs of every autist.


Autism brings many challenges but there are also strengths to be found.  For instance, I have a very high IQ, an excellent memory, hyper-focus and attention to detail which has served me quite well scholastically.  I am not of the camp that views autism as a sickness to be "cured."  I support neuro-diversity, i.e. the belief that autism, dyslexia, and many so-called disabilities are natural variations of the human mind.  The renowned autistic advocate/author/professor Dr. Temple Grandin has said, "The world needs all kinds of minds."


Another inspiration to start this blog is my passion for martial arts.  Specifically, I practice Aikido which is often translated at "the way of the harmonious spirit." Ai - joining, unifying; Ki (a.k.a. Ch'i, Qi) - energy, mind, spirit; Do - the way, the path.  Someone who practices Aikido is called an aikidoka.


We don't really fight or hit back in aikido.  It is a defensive art where we use the attacker(s) momentum to throw/control/restrain them.  It was founded in the 1920s-30s by Morihei Ueshiba (called O'Sensei for "Great Teacher") who combined his martial training with his philosophy of compassion.  He believed attacking only prolongs the spirit of conflict so he developed an art where you can defend yourself without harming the attacker.


"To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace."

Videos on the practice and history of aikido: http://goo.gl/4Zskx  http://goo.gl/H6VF2


I'm really fascinated by O'Sensei's philosophy about conflict and harmony. It recently occurred to me that this could be a good approach to autistic advocacy; which we all know is full of conflict. I took the words Autistic (which originally referred to withdrawal into the self) and Aikido and combined them to get the name of this blog; Autistikido.

I hope for this blog to be a forum to share my thoughts, observations, philosophies as well as be an educational resource to dispel ignorance and misconceptions.  There are a lot of great bloggers and resources already out there so I have posted links to their works (see right-hand side).  I can respect that readers may have differing opinions but I ask that you be respectful.  If you have a burning desire to attack me or make hateful comments, please save your energy and go somewhere else on the web.