Asperger's - Biological Variation?

Post Reply New Topic

I know this topic has been done to death on this forum but I just had some ideas floating through my head that I felt I wanted to share with the rest of you.

I tend to lean towards the "biolgical variation" side of the divide rather than "disablity" side, possibly because it makes me feel better about myself, but I do have several other reasons.

Before going any further I should try and define what I mean by "disability" and "difference". In this context I would define disability as something completely pathological, i.e. it has a negative impact on the individual, without any real positive benefit to the individual (or society). Difference is just defined as biological variation - i.e. some people have brown hair, while others have blonde or ginger, etc.

As most of you probably know, evolution is simply the fact that the allele frequency in a population changes over time. One of the major driving forces that causes this change in allele frequency is natural selection - the alleles that result in phenotypes that allow the organism to surive and reproduce are favoured by natural selection. Before human civilisation, when we were basically "wild", "autistic" traits, such as poor communication skills, dyspraxia, etc may have been selected against. We tend to be loners, so we would've lacked support from other people while being attacked by wild animals, injured, etc and we would probably find it difficult to find a mate, so we would fail to survive and reproduce. In this case I suppose you could view it as a disability.

Evolution tends to work on a cost vs benefit basis, so for instance, the benefit of having a big brain out-weighs the huge energy costs involved, and in order to cope with these costs humans have lost a lot of the physical strength other apes have (muscles require energy). So, while the cost of having poor social skills, etc may have been too high to justify the benefits of having strong analytical minds (for instance) in the past, it could be different in the present. We can communicate via the internet, which is easier than face to face and we don't really need as much social support as we would have needed in the past. It's also easier to find a mate, since we're basically living in one big global community (with the internet and international travel), so there's bound to be someone out there similar to you that's now easier to find. The beneficial aspects of asperger's could enable someone to get a job, for example, in computers, which further enhances the likelihood of survival and reproduction. Of course, the other side of the coin is that it's extremely difficult for some of us to get jobs, but that doesn't mean we just wither and die - we can still survive and reproduce!

However, even if natural selection didn't select "for" autistic alleles, it probably isn't selecting against them either, because humans have reduced it's influence, since we care for the weak, have medicine, agriculture, domesticed animals, etc. Since they aren't being selected for or against, the autistic alleles just kind of pop up and float around in the population at random.

Now it's important to note that evolution does not mean "getting better", as in "superior" than other species. The only thing evolution does is make organism better suited to their environment, so they can continue to survive and reproduce, sometimes causing the organism to change so much that it can't mate with the originals and hence and new species is born. In this case I am not trying to say that people with autism are the "next stage" in human evolution, and that we are going to evolve to become superior to NT's (like how magneto considers the mutants in X-Men "Homo Superior"). To say that is a complete misunderstanding of evolution! It is not a pyramid with humans sitting at the very pinacle, instead it's like a branching tree with humans sitting on one of the branches (close to the branches of the other great apes). I suppose you could imagine then that on the Homo Sapien twig there are many leaves, each representing the great variation within our species - a straight leaf, gay leaf, black leaf, white leaf, NT leaf and Asperger's leaf. All human, just slightly different and all pretty much equal.

Well I'm sorry for rambling on, and I probably haven't explained myself very well as I'm pretty tired. I hope you can make some sense out of it and post your views. I don't know if what I've posted is right or wrong, it's just something to consider. I'm quite nervous posting on internet forums because I'm afraid of everyone jumping on what I've said, so try to be gentle

I have a few other things to say but I'm just gonna leave it there for now.

it is only a 'disability' to those that don't have the condition. I go home, I close the door, I have no more 'disability'. I rise and leave my home and go out into the world, ah. . there's the 'disability!'

i agree completely with what the guy above said......the happiest and least (disabling) times of my life was when I had a structured lifestyle (school or what have you), a couple of fun special interests, and one or two close friends who let me be me. Whenever im working a job with expectations of an everyman that i cant complete or hanging around a group that expects certain things that i cant do...its a disability. If i'm allowed to be me and be reminded that a couple people like me for me....its hardly disabling. Except maybe for when the special interests become too intense

------------------------------
Disability, n. (Webster)
1. Want of competent natural or bodily power, strength or ability.
2. Want of competent intellectual power or strength of mind.
------------------------------
Difference, n. (Webster)
1. The state of being unlike or distinct.
2. The quality which distinguishes one thing from another.
------------------------------

I have now been sitting here for well over three hours pondering this matter of my self-diagnosed AS or HFA and "Disability or difference?", and I am finding the question far too complex to be answered with a simple “Yes” or even with a qualifying “No, but ...”.

I am 59 years old and I have a wife and two daughters and five grandchildren variously dependent upon me, yet I am still a nine-year-old boy wondering who might at least help to take care of *my* needs until *I* die. I have always done fairly well while working alone in a well-structured setting, of course, and I have been mostly serene while sitting here for a week in a motel room on my home planet. However, my magnetic-strip key for the door here will expire in 36 hours, and I have waveringly told my employer I will be back at work on the upcoming 9th even though my old-age-worsening eyesight is now blurring and confusing my autistic-visual thinking I so greatly need to continue earning the weekly paycheck that family generously offers.

Yes, from not long after the cradle and until just a few days before the grave, my life will have proved I have been at least somewhat-disablingly disordered all throughout.

I do like the OP's post. It provokes much thought. Now to put those thoughts into words...

I can understand completely. Its been my thought recently that the spectrum's gene (assuming there is one, given genetics and bloodlines with the condition) is designed to save our brain in case of problems at birth or during early life. I started a discussion on this, but it didnt last that long (only 24 votes ). Ive had this idea since i had a difficult birth (born nearly a month premature, and jaundice, plus chicken pox within the first 2-3 years of my life). Ive considered it a neural bypass gene since it seems capable of keeping oxygen to key areas of the brain while sacrificing/limiting oxygen to others (which could explain underdevelopment of certain sections in an autistic brain). But, thats just a theory based on observation . . . sadly, an observation of a very small population <sigh>.

With respect to said discussion (again, only 24 votes last time i checked), roughly 2/3 of those that participated were in the spectrum and had difficulties at birth. I may try the poll again (further revised) at a later time.

It's both. The symptoms arise from a variation in brain structure, and some of those symptoms can be disabling in certain situations.

I don't think you got much to worry about. That was a clearly stated entirely legitimate viewpoint. I don't entirely see it the same way, but there's nothing wrong with a difference of opinion as long as you aren't promoting harm being done to me or my kids.

I'd have to call myself disabled, since there's things it's impossible for me to do that most other people are able to do and take for granted, the way I take it for granted that I can go outside and walk to my mailbox. There's people that aren't able to do that, and they'd be considered disabled, although undoubtedly a lot of those people are smarter than me and more talented at one thing or another.

Steven Hawking's disabled too, but that don't mean he's dumb

This is mostly a question of semantics, so I don't think there's an absolute answer.



This is the standard view, although it might be noted that unlike survival, reproduction isn't an all or nothing proposition. Some individuals produce more offspring than others, and for natural selection to operate, these offspring must produce another generation of offspring.

I'm not doubting that natural selection operates, since it's basically true by definition, but I'm not entirely certain that the standard view is a comprehensive view of the phenomenon of change in life forms.

Here's why:



Again, this is the standard view, but you'll note that the current standard view of evolution is entirely based on the standard view of economics. I'm not certain that it's appropriate to apply economic theory lock stock and barrel to biological systems.

Considering how few economists saw that the current financial crisis was coming, I'm not even sure that economic theory applies very well to economics.

In any case, the standard view of evolution is pretty much the only game in town right now, but I'm keeping an open mind.

Natural selection is still going on in modern humans, since some individuals produce more offspring than others, and the differences in reproductive output between individuals is not entirely random.

It seems pretty clear that aspies produce fewer offspring than the average of the general human population.

The thing I can't figure out is; How come we aren't already extinct? There must be a reason.

Possibly at least this ...



However, I do believe everything and everyone exists for good purpose.

Really great thread. I like your reasoning.

I voted "No", but there are some disclaimers that I need to get across.

I can understand the argument that AS is a "biological variation". We understand so little about it. In the tremendously broad evolutionary sense, who can possibly know what Nature is doing with the traits that we currently term "Autistic"?
From a purely objective scientific angle, AS may well be just a "biological variation".

But when put in more humanistic terms, I see AS as a disorder. It interferes with the psychological and behavioral functioning of the organism. And humans are inherently social organisms. It's hard to get around that one. I'd like to think that I could stay utterly isolated for the rest of my life and be happy, but the necessity of other people, even in the slightest capacity, is something that is really difficult to ignore.

Asperger's causes me problems in society as well as out of society. It is not just social dysfunction. It is perceptual, sensory, and cognitive dysfunction as well. I can be by myself and still misinterpret information. To argue that AS effectively ceases to exist when one is not around other people has never made sense to me.

All I am sure of is that I feel disabled by this condition. I will not promote my weaknesses as misunderstood strengths, and expect the rest of the world to agree with me.

Thanks all for your replies, all very interesting!

I think I agree with those of you who said it depends on the situation, and I think really there's no clean cut answer to this. I don't think AS is completely pathological (e.g. like cancer) as it has some positive qualities as well as negative, as opposed to being completely negative.

Another idea that relates to this is to do with "roles". Psychologists think people tend to conform to the roles they are given (see Zimbardo's Experiment ) and behave accordingly. So.. if someone thinks AS is a diability and treads you like a "disabled person" you might comform to the role of a disabled person and "feel" disabled, probably more than you would if someone just treated you like a person.

I have experienced this effect first hand - in one AS support group I attend we tend to be treated as "disabled" people, where we get to do fun activities with leaders who has to make sure we're safe, and sometimes speak to us like we're all 5 year olds. In a way it kind of feels like your on a school trip with teachers, etc. When I'm in this group I feel much more "autistic" (have trouble speaking, etc) and submissive than usual. It's actually quite uncomfortable, but i enjoy the activities we take part in.

In another group I have attended, which is run by a psychologist who specialises in AS, we are treated much more like equals. The psychologist is more or less there to "facilitate" rather than lead, speaks to us like adults, and lets us get on with discussing problems related to AS. When I'm in this group I feel much more capable of speaking, confident and comfortable. In fact, it was attending this group that made me question whether As truely was a disability or not. I just felt so completely at ease with myself and the other members, my communication skills didn't feel impaired (compared to when I'm speaking to NT's) and everyone was just so honest - i.e. there was no double-speak, hidden meanings, etc - people just said what thy meant and it was so refreshing! I think if an NT was to attend this group that they would feel "disabled", or at least have that uncomfortable "I don't fit in" feeling I'm sure most of us feel most of the time around NT's.

In a way it's a viscous cycle because if someone treats you as a disabled person, you feel disabled, which can make you appear more disabled, which makes people treat you as disabled.

So I think this is really a long roundabout way of saying that whether we see AS as a disability or not depends on the situation, our perception of ourselves and people's perseption of us.

Btw, I realise that we sometimes have to use the term "disabled" when trying to get support, etc and that's fair enough, but I don't think we have to "feel" disabled (or completely disabled). When I was first diagnosed with AS I had this immediate sense of relief, followed by "oh my god, I'm actually diabled!" and got quite depressed about it, so I think these thoughts I've been having are my way of trying to challenge those thoughts. I supposed I just don't want to feel like a "disabled person", or at least be ok with being "disabled" if I decide I truely am.

The “standard” view of evolution offers a number of plausible solutions. Probably the least plausible would be “genetic drift”, subsequent to a relatively recent population bottle neck.

Instances of Autism could arise as a result of random mutations. More than one mutation might result in Autism or the relevant chromosomal material may be particularly prone to alteration, or both these factors could be occurring.

Another alternative plausible explanation is that instances of Autism are polygenetic (multiple genes are necessary to trigger an instance of Autism), with the relative disadvantage of an allele possibly contributing to Autism either being balanced by their positive effects when occurring individually or outside of a pattern sufficient to trigger Autism, or alternatively by the balance of the_relative rarity of Autism triggering assortment, weighted against some disadvantage attending alternative alleles in the gene pool.

That is true for man-made artifacts. Human created things are created for some human purpose. The same cannot be said about natural things. Natural things happen.

ruveyn

[...]

Er, you do not have a very high opinion of “disabled people” do you?

Eh? I just meant that I don't like people treating me as if I am stupid, which is how people tend to treat a lot of diabled people. That's why I said "disabled" with quotes, as some people seem to view people with autism and other disabilities as being mentally ret*d (for instance) and so speak to them slowly and like they are 5 year olds.

I base my opinion of someone on their personality, not on whether they have a disability or not.

I am not aware of man even being able to create. Personally, I can do nothing more than to accumulate and fabricate. But either way, "natural things" happen for good purpose also.