Aspies, Neanderthals, and Agency

Post Reply New Topic

In past posts, I have argued for a "positive" Identity, one based on an objective criteria for Neurodiversity, and one based on tangible achievements.

Given events of the past few years, both online, offline, and in the society at large, It appears that there is a fairly obvious split between those who have some form of "Agency", in that they accept that they have the power to make a difference for themselves and their fellow individuals, and those who decide, for whatever reason, that we do not have agency at all.

For many years, the term "Aspie" was used, until political winds shifted and some felt the name was a problem. No matter what phrase one uses, the fact remains that there is a clear difference between those who believe that there are individuals with a distinctly different gene expression, of whatever origin, and those who believe in the disability model popularized by DSM-5 and it's derivative works.

Some of the latter may claim that even our identity is to be decided by nameless individuals who sit on a committee that writes the DSM-5. I have no objections to using the criteria found in DSM-5, ICD-12, DSM-IV-TR, ICD-10, or any related topics as an introduction to the topic, but I reject the disability model of DSM-5 as having any relevance to discussion of Neurodiversity.

It's increasingly questionable if "Aspie" or "Neurodiversity" is even the appropriate term any longer. There is another option. Some of our own posters, and other activists scattered across the internet and across continents, have advocated that much of the gene expression associated with Neurodiversity tracks back to Neanderthals. Some openly advocate for a "Neanderthal" Identity. Whatever the scientific or historical merits, politically it's better to have a identity that advocates for agency and self-improvement, than supplicating to faceless bureaucrats.

As we move towards more physical locations and tangible efforts, and towards efforts with more of our own agency, the defining political debate surrounding Neurodiversity will not be verbal definitions, but who will create our future. Will our future be created by some faceless committee, or faceless bureaucrats, or will it be created by our own hands?

Let me get this straight: You want to take the reigns of your own destiny. And in order to do this, you want people to start call you and every one else on the spectrum (who cares to have self-agency) Neanderthals?

That's what we're going with here?

Why not Purples? Or Daiseys? Or anything else NOT associated with being an idiot, a slob, and a person with poor moral judgement?

I choose purples abbreviated to purps

edit: maybe not , sounds too much like a Judge Dredd crim

I'll let one of our own answer that question.

http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm

Since I can't edit my prior post, a detailed explanation of RDOS's Neanderthal theory can be found in the author's own words at: http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm

In answer to your question(s), as identities go, "Neanderthal" is an apt choice with the body of work behind it. I'm not particularly concerned with the public view of Neanderthals as "an idiot, a slop, and a person with poor moral [judgment]", at one point residents of Oklahoma were called "Okies" and mocked, and yet one of them became a President. It also has the advantage that is not based on appearance or lack of appearance in a medical textbook.

Do you have any other objections other than that some people use "Neanderthal" as an insult?

I've never heard anyone use the word Neanderthal as an insult, except for those old GEICO caveman commercials. Neanderthals actually had larger brains than modern humans, so they could have been slightly more intelligent.

When describing an existing person I do not remember it bieng used as anything but an insult.

Wicktionary

Urban Dictionary

Must be a generational thing. Calling a living a person a "Neanderthal" was ALWAYS an insult from the time Neanderthals were discovered as fossils in the 19th Century up until a few years ago. It meant you were primitive, or apelike, or like that.

Now (ironically) White racists actually want to be associated with Neanderthals.

And apparently so do another group: some non racists folks who are on the ASD spectrum like the OP.

Europeans (ie "Whites") have been shown to have more Neanderthal genes- like one to three percent- than do folks of subsaharan African descent (ie "Blacks").Its the difference between amount, and nothing at all. But it is a proven difference. But the notion that ASD folks are that way because they inherited Neanderthal genes is pure speculation.

No objections?
We have nothing BUT objections, and no reason to favor it because it doesnt make any sense.

You DO have a chin, you dont have a long narrow skull, with a protruding face, heavy front teeth, nor do you have an occipital bun (long pointed bulge in the back of your skull to balance your protruding face), nor do you have any of the other distinctive skeletal features of a Neanderthal person. If you could travel through time and meet actual Neanderthals they would not recognize you as one of them. But their rival anatomical moderns would probably recognize you as a fellow anatomical modern.

Your genome is at least 98 percent anatomical modern. So the fact is that you are not a Neanderthal by any yardstick. And thats so even if the Neanderthal theory of the origin of autism were true (which is unlikely). Even if you are an aspie because of genes that you inherited from Neanderthal ancestors you are still a far cry from being a Neanderthal yourself.

So how can you identify as one? The notion is several kinds of nonsense.

if someone's sense of agency depends on the perception of passively belonging to one arbitrary group or another, then i think the name that's used for the group as a whole is the least of their problems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control

So many objections that there's really no good place to start! I just decided to let this dude have his say. It's not like people are really going to be just fine with switching to calling Autistic people neanderthals. And heck, creativity comes best to those who do not fear social shunning.

The fact that the OP is utterly unphased by the fact that this word is already used in another scientific sense, seen as an insult, and based on a far-out and for the most part debunked theory of autism, is really something to admire, if you like creative types. Maybe the next out-there thing he comes up with will be useful. Who knows?

Neanderthals were in most ways as advanced Homo sapiens, they likely less eusocial is my guess.

The funny part about this is that I was calling myself a Neanderthal for about five years before I was diagnosed.

Just because we lack the gross anatomy of an earlier form does not mean that there is not a close relationship. Birds and crocodiles are more closely related than crocodiles and lizards.

I like the term Neurodiverse. This study showed with fMRI that NT were all fairly similar in connection patterns, and ND were different from NT but were also different from other ND individuals.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/ ... idualized/

HOLD UP! It completely went over my head until I read this. The OP said that his feelings are that Neanderthals are not African in decent. He said that they are European in decent.

He's trying to make out that Europeans are a different species, and that autistic people are somehow European-er than all the other white people.

This is a f-ing racist neo-nazi thing. I can't believe I got sucked in enough to believe it to be harmless and cute.

Ewe. I've been slimmed.

Yeah, unfortunately there is always some scumbag trying to make themselves feel better because the color of their skin. Something for which they had absolutely no control.

But yes Neanderthals were European, Middle Eastern and Western Asian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

I get what you're saying but for the record, Neanderthals were NOT dumb.