Is Aspergers evolution in action? Vote on TED.com

Post Reply New Topic

I agree, every single action that a human being does has some type of consequence, as it relates to future events. Whether through individual consequence or how those actions may result in consequences to others.

People influence other people, but even if one could clone a "human Jesus" or a Hitler, they would be entirely different individuals because of modern culture and environment. That environment includes what we understand at this point as 14 Billion years of evolution to make one "human Jesus" or one Hitler. That's some complicated stuff. On that level the effects seem almost impossible to predict.

But if it happened yesterday, 70 years ago, or 2000 years ago, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that similiar results could happen.

Tim Tebow is influencing people to "Tebow" across the world, through playing football, that wasn't an expected result, but I think it would really be hard to make another Tebow, or produce close to that result, by any method known to man.

Really, in someways all of us are that unique, so many factors come together to make an individual all of what they are.

Erm, he really isn't. He's influencing some people in America. Outside of America he's unheard of because nobody outside of America cares about gridiron. I only know who he is because of the context, if you came up to me and asked me who Tim Tebow was I wouldn't have a clue.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Well I know the answer.

But you know who doesn't know s**t about evolution?

Autism Supremicists!

Maybe not in my town or your town, but around the world. I was surprised too. It was recently highlighted in a story in Time magazine, that showed individuals "Tebowing around the world".

The exact quote picks up over 5000 hits on google.

Recently in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/sports/football/fascinated-by-tim-tebow-on-more-than-sundays.html?pagewanted=all



Not likely I would have known about it either, if I didn't have a subscription to Time Magazine.

I read the entire article and didn't see anything that was evidence of "tebowing" ( can't even type that with a straight face, it's just too funny) around the world. Maybe in a rather parochial sense the author of the article assumes that what's going on in America must be of huge significance elsewhere.

Time magazine doesn't provide the content for free on the internet, so I figured the New York Times would be a reliable source. Wiki reports it below, also.

It's a real phenomenon, similiar to Planking. Some people take it serious, and it's likely a joke phenomenon for others. Probably a fad that will pass like most others; but there is no question that it is happening around the world, and orginated because of Tim Tebow's behavior on the football field.

And, "Tebowing" was officially recognized as a word in the English language by the Global Language Monitor, due to its level of worldwide usage.

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tebowing#Tebowing

Just a thought but is it possible that neanderthals interbred with humans? Explains why everyone is on the spectrum.

Does anyone know anything about neanderthals? I think their behaviour was different-they were different, and they didn't generally understand/live with humans ect. You are also welcome to look up information about them. I think you will find that they were smart too.

They have tested the DNA of human, neanderthal and other remains and found that they did interbreed.
However, has someone test Aspie DNA against a Neanderthals DNA or other species? I doubt it. Even still it could have evolved.

"Aspergers" is not evolution in action. The human species in its entirety is evolution in action. I would say the existence of "Aspergers" is more like eugenics in action.

I don't know if it's evolution is action. Sometimes I worry when people start talking in these terms because people then start to go the Eugenics route and we know that history don't we? Sometimes I think people are on the autistic spectrum or maybe they just learn to think like we do? The problem with talking about Evolutions is people tend to leave out certain groups. Personally I don't think it's wrong or even illogical to even consider that different races or people may have different levels of intelligence. I don't even assume it's wrong to assume that women are just as logical as men. The problem that comes with this type of reasoning is that people aren't willing to consider the other option that none of these things may be true. I'm a black aspie so I've put up with people questioning my intelligence all my life. Especially in high school. My IQ was 117-120 in high school. Not to mention I grew up poor with a mom on crack and a dad barely around, he's an aspie too I think. Anyways, in that kind of environment my IQ should be been like 70 or something like most blacks raised that way. When I finally got to college and away from my parents my IQ skyrocketed to 154. I don't know how far other people can go but I do know that we shouldn't give up on people simply because they are not where we are now. And we shouldn't make specious claims about what or why something exist without exhausting our efforts. It's dangerous to go around calling someone inferior when we may barely have an idea of what any of that means. Calling it evolution in action only insist that evolution is some kind of progression when it certainly is not. Evolution is adaptivity and as long as other humans are surviving in this society it shows that they are well adapted for it.

I am not a scientist, but I think that autism may be a form of the human brain evolving. The latest report of the CDC will indicate that 1 in 66 kids have an autistic disorder. Five years ago it was 1 in 150. I know their are varying degrees of autism, some nonverbal, some with mental retardation, but I do believe that in the future those who are considered "autistic" will have highly developed brains and superior inteligence in whatever specific interest they fancy as well as contribute to the technological advances in their respective industry. I just can't seem to wrap my head around "1 in 66" without thinking that one day NTs will have to adjust to the world of an autistic person instead of it being the other way around. I suspect my 3 yr old has aspergers, although he is different from me in the way I think and process things, he has a brilliant mind. I love asking him questions to try to figure out how he processes things. He has really inspired me to pursue a career helping people in the spectrum.

If aspergers or HFA were genetically linked and it bestowed a reproductive advantage on a person ( a better advantage than being nt) then it would be picked by natural selection and then the gene and the trait would be gradually increase in frequency. We would indeed be evolving towards "aspieness".

That it is genetically linked is highly likely.
But how does it confer a reproductive advantage?

I cant even imagine a hypothetical global situation in which it could be an advantage for the species as a whole.

So it is not "evolution in action". Just another endemic genetic variation that will not grow in commonness in the species.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 04 May 2012, 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

More people diagnosed does not equal more people have autism. Just higher awareness

To clarify it was 1 in 88 identified by the CDC; their statistical methodology measures children in classes for the developmentally disabled receiving support services. Close to 500,000 of these children identified in the school system are expected to need subsistence support from society or their families as they enter into adulthood in the next decade.

The folks with the very high IQ's, for the most part aren't in the CDC's statistics; very unlikely that they would be in classes for the developmentally disabled, and captured by the statistical methodology. Close to 500,000 of these children with developmental disabilities identified by the government are projected to need subsistence support from society and families. It will be family and society and the so called "NT"s that they will rely upon for survival, because for many of them it is a functionally disabling disorder in everyday life.

There really is no evidence that the human brain overall is developing in either a positive or negative direction, for survival. Culture and technology provides external forces that allow people to survive that would have never survived in the wild without culture. It is actually an exoskelton of sorts for a fairly weak and defenseless creature.

The process of Neuroplasticity along with an ever changing culture, often is the deciding force in survival.

Put a human being out in the woods naked. without any cultural tools, and IQ doesn't mean a whole lot without physical stamina, strength, agility, and the will to survive.

For the most part human beings have become dependent on the exoskeleton of culture for survival. There really is no evidence that humans are evolving as a whole, as a species, as a stronger one and smarter one, instead quite a bit of evidence as a more populous one, as a result of collective intelligence gained over several thousand years, from the development of the ability to record knowledge, and the advantages culture provides for survival, that has arisen from that collective intelligence. And interestingly enough those that have gained the most benefit of culture, now have the opportunity not to reproduce, in part because of the cultural byproduct of birthcontrol. This allows human beings to defeat the most elemental device for survival of their genetic material, reproduction. Regardless of how smart and strong they may be.

Evolution is completely dependent on whom is successful in reproducing; evolution could care less if the results are advantageous or disadvantageous, there are what they are. Culture plays an interesting role in who surives and who reproduces.

In the strictest sense, evolution is about adapting to your enviroment. It is usually the result of two things: Isolation of a population. Or the sudden opening of a new enviromental niche through something extreme ( Read: "Mass Extinction!").
In no way can autism be considered evolutionary.
Besides a genetic component, there seems to be a needed enviromental trigger too, as in a chemical insult or infection.

Sincerely,
Matthew

Why? If anything, I think that an hyperfocused mind will have more difficult in predicting the future (new pressures could came from several sources, than, the more things you are interested, the more the possibility that you will note the future events coming).

No, and it's utterly stupid to think so.