Assortative Mating And Autism

An original-research post using the 2020 SSC survey to test the assortative-mating hypothesis: that highly-analytical (autism-risk-gene-carrying) tech workers marrying each other should push their children's autism risk very high. The sample (8,043 highly-analytical respondents) is ~2-3x more autistic than the US base rate (4% diagnosed overall, 8% under 20). Results: among 1,892 children older than 3, autism prevalence was 3.7% (5.2% including undiagnosed-suspected) — much LOWER than the 8% in young respondents — and crucially, couples where BOTH partners were highly analytical showed NO elevated rate vs others (95% CI: any elevation < 3 percentage points), and no severity difference. A qualified 'no' to the strong hypothesis. Scott offers candidate explanations (regression to the mean dominates; or p(on the spectrum | highly analytical) is much lower than p(highly analytical | on the spectrum)) and is scrupulous about limitations (small both-analytical sample, weak operationalization, undiagnosed children).

Quality 64 · Strong. Strong, low (64). A careful, honest original-research post with a clear (null) finding against the strong assortative-mating-autism hypothesis and good epistemic hygiene (confidence intervals, candidate mechanisms, limitations). Held to low-Strong by its modest scope, chart-dependence, and small key subsample.

Claude’s paradigm shift 48 · Moderate. Moderate (48). An empirical test of an existing hypothesis (Baron-Cohen-adjacent); the contribution is the (null) data, not a new idea.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. Minor (2). A niche contribution to the autism/assortative-mating discourse; no real-world footprint. (Behavioral-genetics topic, not social psych, and a debunking-style null result -> no replication caveat.)