Right, but I wasn't trying to make the whole argument in one little post. The problem is that all our measures of intelligence have never been shown to be good measures. We've just sort of assumed that intelligence is a thing. When it fact it may be that any child who's provided with the resources and support to meet high expectations will meet them.

So what they could do here is show that Autism occurrence is more closely related to their measures than to income levels in childhood, but I don't think they did that (I confess I didn't read the whole thing).