On the relationship between autism and evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Autism has everything to do with evolution, but not in the ways that people tend to think.

Let me start by describing a species of mammal. I'll call them Squigs. Natural selection has produced in Squigs a uniform coloration--namely, they are striped in a way that allows them to "blend" into their environment, which is mainly tall grass.

It is no mistake that natural selection has produced this coloration, as it makes Squigs harder for both potential predators and prey to see them. In other words, this coloration is beneficial from an evolutionary point of view. It helps them to both eat and not be eaten.

Natural selection has also produced a pattern of behavior in Squigs in which individuals whose coloration deviates from the "norm" tend to be shunned. It is easy to understand why this pattern of behavior became prevalent: the normal coloration has great evolutionary utility, and Squigs who are "attracted" to and mate with Squigs with "deviant" coloration tend to not pass their genes on, as their offspring will tend to have a deviant color pattern, too, and are more likely to starve or be eaten before they're able to reproduce. However, Squigs who are attracted to and mate with Squigs with normal coloration will tend to produce normally colored offspring--they will reap the benefits of the pattern wrought in the species by natural selection. So, not only does "normal" coloration emerge, but a pattern of behavior in which deviation from "normal" coloration is shunned--all due to the fact that the normal coloration is beneficial from an evolutionary point of view.

It's not that Squigs (even Squigs with normal coloration and brains) don't produce variety in their offspring--their genes undergo mutation like any others--it's just that natural selection flenses deviation away. Natural selection "gathers" or accumulates deviation in a bloodline until the threshold for shunning is reached.

Keep in mind that the evolution of their deviance-avoiding behavior is essentially the evolution of their brain structure and functionality. There's an aspect of their brains that causes them to be attracted to "normally" colored Squigs. Squigs that are born with deviance in this brain structure are attracted to deviant coloration, and their genes tend not to be passed on. In other words, natural selection has produced a sort of uniformity of brain in them, and deviations from the "normal brain" are flensed away the same way deviations in color are.

Simply put, natural selection rewards (makes prevalent) a predilection toward normality. A proposed term for this dynamic is "koinophilia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinophilia

Now, instead of Squigs, let's talk about humans. Only we're not going to talk about the coloration of humans--instead, we will focus on human behavior. The same predilection towards normality exists in regard to human behavior.

Natural selection has produced a sort of uniformity in human behavior and brains for the same reason it produced uniformity in the color and brains of Squigs.

Now, you might say, "Human behavior is very diverse, and normality is an illusion." Let me take a step back and bring another variable into the equation: altruism.

Humans are, generally speaking, extremely altruistic. Whereas a Squib will only shun a deviant member of its species, a human is just as likely to feel badly for them and try to help them. When we see someone with an illness, our desire is to help them work around it. When we see someone who has a disability, our desire is to help them work around it.

When a predator chases a herd of Squibs, it's likely to catch and kill the most physically "impaired" (slowest/most clumsy/etc.) member of the herd. Metaphorically speaking, if that predator chases a herd of humans, the able-bodied humans are likely to pick up the physically impaired among them and carry them to safety. Assuming that the physical impairment in both Squib and human is genetic in origin, the deviant genes of the human might be passed on while the deviant genes of the Squib won't--all because of altruism. Simply put, altruism "blunts" the sharp edge of natural selection, making for a more diffuse "norm" and facilitating the existence of a much larger group of deviants.

In other words, the deviance of Squibs might be illustrated using a distribution curve with a relatively narrow base--say the "bell curve" of "normal distribution". The deviance of humans might be illustrated using a distribution curve with a wider base and flatter "peak".

Altruism, to the degree that it exists in humans, also allows "deviance" to be carried out to its absolute extreme. A Squib probably doesn't have to deviate much in order to be shunned--perhaps any Squib more than one standard deviation from mean is "shunned". Humans, because we are so altruistic and have established such rigid ideas about the sacredness of human life, are very concerned with giving as many people as possible the ability to live and, if they wish, procreate. We don't give up on people who are merely one standard deviation from mean. We don't even give up on people who are three standard deviations from mean. We facilitate the "accumulation" of deviance until individuals are produced who are either physically incapable of reproducing (as in, sterility or nonfunctional genitalia) or extraordinarily unlikely to engage in reproductive behavior (as in, deviant brain).

"Autism" describes the individuals on the very outer limits of brain deviance. The more deviant the brain, the more deviant the behavior, the further removed from "normal socialization", the fewer chances to have sex, etc. A person two standard deviations from mean is likely to get together with someone about two standard deviations from mean, and if they have a child, that child is likely to be, say, two and a half standard deviations from mean--again, natural selection "accumulates" deviance.

The "symptoms" or clinical description of Autism is simply a set of characteristics that become prevalent as one approaches the outer reaches of brain deviance--namely, a lack of socialization ability and restricted behaviors. At the very extreme level of brain deviance--say, a person who is "brain dead"--there is no socialization and virtually no "behavior".

I'm sure some of you are thinking, "Great intelligence is brain deviance, but more intelligence is a good thing." Take a step back and look at the big picture. Great intelligence is good for, say, inventing things, but it's also a burden.

Consider religion. The "normal" person is pretty open to adopting religious "beliefs" that make them feel a lot better about stuff like death. People who are very intelligent, who see more and more clearly than the "average Joe" are more likely to see religion for what it is and become melancholy and even obsessed with death.

Consider how much time we spend doing things. The "normal" person devotes a "normal" amount of time to activities. A person with great intelligence, who sees more and more clearly than the "average Joe" is more likely to get caught up in, for instance, thinking about the nature of light or reading esoteric philosophical texts. In other words, great intelligence can be quite conducive to "restricted behaviors".

That said, if "normal" people had great intelligence as it exists today, the human species would be screwed, as there would be no one to drive our trucks, teach our kids, put out our fires, or cash our checks. We'd all be wasting our time on fairly useless stuff. Too much of any trait is bad--a predilection toward normality urges us to take the "middle path" codified in the norm. It is no mistake that the history of human philosophy is full of references to "the middle path", "the golden mean", "the way", "forms", etc. It is no mistake that our religions glorify the "normal" human life an an ethical ideal.

I say "as it exists today" because there's no reason that intelligence couldn't gradually and generally increase in our species by evolution--indeed, it has done so since the dawn of man--but additional mechanisms/traits would (have to) evolve along with it to make sure that our increased intelligence wouldn't undermine our ability to maintain a productive and functional society. And, if the general intelligence of future humans did gradually and generally increase, it would no longer be considered "great intelligence" because it would be dwarfed by the relatively greater intelligence produced in the outer limits of their brain deviancy. In other words, normal intelligence will always be "average" in relation to the deviancy that radiates from the norm.

So there you have it--"autism" is simply the accumulation, by natural selection, of genetic deviancy that pertains to the brain. Of course, the brain can deviate in ways that don't relate to genetics--you can make an autistic person by hitting a normal person in the head with a sledgehammer. But the general trend described by autism relates to genetic inheritance.

Now, before you go talking to your neighbor about this stuff, there are a few things to keep in mind.

Number one, the effects of altruism on natural selection are at the heart of extraordinarily contentious social, political, and ethical issues. Really, it is the socio-political issue. This is the stuff people really fight over--how to address our deviance/diversity.

Have you seen Avatar? Or Pocahontas? Or Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer? Have you read Harry Potter? The conflict between altruism and natural selection is a main theme in each.

Do you know who Hitler was? Simply put, he was a man who had enough of altruism, and wished to reinstate "pure" natural selection (or, rather, his estimation of it) as a governing policy.

In other words, it's really hard to talk about this stuff without evoking concepts like "eugenics". So be careful!

Please note: my description of the relationship between altruism and natural selection is not meant to endorse any political or ethical point of view. It is merely an attempt at describing reality.

I remember reading something about how deviations made sense from an evolutionary point of view, because if a world-changing event were to occur, the entire species would not die out. There would be a few who were already able to adapt to the change. Though these few might be the oddballs in society as it is now, they could be the only ones to survive if the conditions were right.

This was not specifically referencing autism in any way, but surely we must have some human-race-saving abilities given the right conditions.

Very interesting analysis!

I'm sure you've read The Selfish Gene. Have you ever read Poul Anderson's novel Brain Wave? Or Daniel Keyes' Flowers for Algernon?

You may find them interesting.

You don't have a very solid understanding of Human evolution.

Do you have a degree in Anthropology or evolutionary biology? Otherwise what is the point of trying to explain all the fallacies in the above post to you.

Gideon, you've already filled up one thread with your backwards and laughable ideas regarding evolution, please leave this one alone.

Honestly, when I read this passage of yours in the other thread, I really did laugh out loud. It betrays a hilariously misguided and cartoonish understanding of evolution:

The entire package is how it got preserved Aspergers are a compliment to an NT when hunting. The asperger person would be the lone scout finding where animals were located he then reports back to the social NT group of hunters. The scout evolved to work alone and to sift huge amounts of sensory input. The scout also needed to be more cold tolerant because he went out alone, he is more touch sensitive and more prone to sleeping disorders because he needs to be wary when asleep more than the social NT hunters. The NT hunters work with input from the scout but work socially. That is why Aspergers are more rare than NTs it is all evolution at work.

Just understand this: whoever wrote that simply does not understand evolution.

"you can make an autistic person by hitting a normal person in the head with a sledgehammer"

Umm...no.
No you can't.

i have actually been thinking on this subject for a couple of years now. i have not had time to do any research into it as of yet though. i have been wondering about how it is effecting our species that we have pretty much stopped any sort of natural selection. not that i want people to die or anything, far from it. i wonder though how different our species will be in a couple thousand years than it has been in the past. things like saving the sick with medical advancements that treat their illnesses or heal their injuries must have some sort of effect. having them die off was natures way of getting rid of the slow ones and keeping others from passing on genetic weaknesses. i did think briefly about how autism might fit in as a natural mutation that might have been useful in some societies. if you look at other species of animals there are often members of their 'societies' that don't fit in. the lone wolf, for example. it also occured to me that people with disabilities in the past were probably left to die or killed by their parents, much like in other animals where a mother bird will favour certain chicks and give them the food they need and only give certain other chicks enough to barely get by so that when it is time for them to be on their own they will fail to flourish, or how a mother dog or cat(and other animals i'm sure) will eat or kill their young if they feel they are not normal somehow. i think that the medical intervention and the care we provide for our sick, the accomidations we make for those who are different are great in the moment but they may be detrimental to our species as a whole in the long run.
it also brings up the question of different races over time develping and a seperation between the pretty and healthy people and those of us who are not so pretty or carrying the ideal genes. something like autism throws me for a loop though. in my family it seems to have appeared out of nowhere. where all previous generations have no apparent signs of it, then BAM there it is with a vengance taking over the lives of every single one of us in the newest generation. there is really no explanation of where it came from or how it came to be with us. i wonder if maybe previous generations could have had it and were parented in a way that suppressed it? i have no idea, it's just a thought.
the reason this came to mind for me was because someone said to me that if my step-son was born in earlier civilization, his birth mother would have left him in the woods to die instead of putting him in fostercare. a truely disturbing thought. first i got angry but then when i actually thought about it they could be right. i have no idea what people in caveman times would have done with a child like mine. after a while i came to the conclusion that since he refuses to listen to warnings or instructions and has no sense of danger combined with an insatiable curiosity he probably would have done himself in by now if he were not 'contained' as he is to keep him safe (in the house i mean, he can't get out cause the doors are locked and anything that could be possibly dangerous is locked up).
by the way, i know my grammar is bad and i probably made a bunch of spelling mistakes. i'm okay with that. (:

After what he's said, I wonder if he's going off an unstated adherence to rdos' neanderthal theory/writings.

I think altruism is actually a deferred and delayed variation of ultimate self interest. Generally only humans possess it because it requires intelligence and capabilities animals don't generally possess although there are exceptions. What you say makes sense to me though.

Nonetheless, a person hit with a sledgehammer does not become autistic.

A car and a tricycle both have wheels. They are not the same.