The caveman theory may be correct

Post Reply New Topic

They have the caveman theory for ADHD too. Here is Russell Barkley on the caveman theory.

Here’s storytelling about AD/HD. AD/HD children are just leftover hunters from the Pleistocene era of human evolution and there’s really nothing wrong with them. They’re just the good old hunters from our caveman days being forced to live in a world of farmers and education. That is one view of AD/HD that became very popular over the last decade and that is not a theory. That is a silly little idea for building self-esteem in AD/HD children, and I don’t happen to believe that you should be building self-esteem by lying to people, by practicing small deceits, by creating little stories about the origin of a disorder so that you can act as if it wasn’t a disorder. From that view, there’s nothing wrong with AD/HD. It’s the environment that’s the problem. AD/HD is just a mismatch between little hunters where hunting is no longer needed by the environment. Let me tell you something. The last person I ever want to go hunting with is an AD/HD individual off their medication.

I'm not surprised that Russel Barkley writes like that. He probably makes a lot of money on the disorder-view of ADHD. I suppose what he refers to is Thom Hartmann, who I think was the one that launched this idea in one of his books.

The critic would be much more credible if it came from somebody that didn't make a living on the disorder view.

All scientists studying ADHD make their living off of the disorder. Your criticism is typical of scientology and the fringe antipsychiatry movement...the quack Peter Breggin comes to mind. Yes, he is referring to Hartmann's generally discredited theory.

AD/HD doesnt work like that anyway. Besides, there are roles in modern society that reasonably reflect the techniques, activities, and skill base of hunter-gatherer, and I cant see AD/HD helping much in those roles.

All this AS is a caveman throwback bollocks just doesnt scan. If anything, aspies move away from more animalistic group social behaviour, the kind of move which is going to get the average caveman killed. We are probably LESS like ancient man than the average NT, if anything. If you're looking for monkey-people, it seems to be a matter of individual fauna obscured by overall vegetation.

I agree that the idea that AD/HDers would be superior *traditional" hunter-gatherers is flawed. Thoms problem is that he doesn't go long enough back in time. AD/HD (or for that matter autism) is not an adaptation to anything we know in our species. It's far better to look at the hunting techniques used by European Neanderthals which are *not* the same (or inferior) to ours. What we know about this is that Neanderthals were 90% carnivourous and that they killed megafauna at close distance. That's also the setting we should try to fit the AD/HD traits (along with dyspraxia) into. What this means is that we would expect deficeits in throwing spears (and throwing and catching balls), which is exactly what is part of the motor-problem of ASDs / dyspraxia. Valerius Geists actually proposes, based on the archaeological evidences, that Neanderthals clinged onto the fur-coat of their prey and that's how they could kill them at a close distance. This hypothesis generated a set of predictions that I tested in Aspie-quiz. Sone of them was that autistics would have a strong grip, would drop things when scared, would have an urge to jump over objects and several other things that mostly were confirmed. If one takes this one step further, it is easy to see how the acute senses of autistics would fit perfectly into this (passive) hunting technique.

Even more interesting is that descriptions of organisational plans of modern humans and Neanderthals could have been carbon-copies of the differences between NTs and ADHD. Planning and organising their dwellings doesn't seem to have been a priority for Neanderthals, which is why Aspies have "executive dysfunctions".



They do not. Aspies are not antisocial, they just have different preferences. One of the keys are dislike for socializing with strangers. Another key aspect is stronger bonds with non-strangers. This also fits onto the evidences from Neanderthals. It seems like Neanderthal groups didn't trade.



Aspies cannot be "the future evolution of man". All such ideas are simply whacky and scientifically impossible. Evolution doesn't have a purpose, and since Aspies aren't more fit than NTs, they cannot be the "future".

Russia and China are playing "war games.We still have a lot of nucular weapons and a lunitic ruining/running the US.Stuipid people are breeding more stuipid people and the middle east is on the edge......We do not know the future.

But what does that have to do with the price of corn or caveman hunting implements?

Some of the problems/advantages are shared by NTs as well, and given that Neanderthals died out, they apparently werent very good at this whole survival game. ADHD or Autistic traits can be split between ones that are rubbish for hunter gatherers, and ones that are excellent for it. I could see a difficulty in perceiving danger as being VERY bad for you in forest or on steppe, for example. Suggesting we are a Neanderthal throwback certainly fits better with our less "hunty" abiliies, more so than it does with their more successful cousins.

I didnt say we were "antisocial" (though many are). We are simply less inclined and less able to take part in animalistic social behaviours, wth our difficulties in non verbal communication, reading facial expressions, detecting subtleties or nuances of language or stance etc. Add to that our ego issues, and some of our more "ret*d" sensory issues, and you get someone very unsuited to tribal life, even of a basic kind.

Aspies being an evolutionary step up is whacky and scientifically impossible, but you buy the idea we can be a step down as perfectly reasonable? We arent more fit than NTs? I can think of a few aspies on this forum who would heartily disagree. So a group who generally thrive on the information superhighway, excel with technology, and will happily exists without human contact are absolutely no use in a future of superefficient international communication, obviously. Individuals who can and do go for years without group activity are f*ck all use on say.. long haul spaceflights apparently. As opposed to the vital NT skillsbase of "gathering in group hierarchies based entirely on where you got your clothes, in the pub, throwing things, painting their faces like monkeys arses to attract mates." which are obvioulsy KEY to the continued survival of the race. Lets not forget the aggressive swarming as well..

Actually, since you said "evolution doesnt have a purpose" you stuffed your own argument somewhat. Blatant disregard for all that research and evidence like that suggests you'll just agree with what agrees with you.

That doesn't follow. Dinosaurs died out for some reason, possibly a meteorite impact, but I wouldn't exactly call them ill suited for the survival game. Basically, virus and bacteria are the most fit species, that will be the last one's to die out. It is easy to envision some reasons why Neanderthals died out that are not really related to fitness. I believe the prime reason was that their groups wouldn't accept modern humans individuals (the autistic trait to dislike strangers, you know?). If hybrids couldn't thrive in Neanderthals, but modern humans accepted them, that would go a long way ecplaining that Neanderthals "died out".



This trait goes both ways as have been demonstrated in Aspie-quiz. IOW, Aspies both find some things that NTs find dangerous as not dangerous and some things that NTs don't find dangerous as dangerous. I'd be willing to bet that the former is mostly related to social situations.



Correction: We have difficulty with NT non verbal communication, facial expressions and detecting their subtleties. These things are species-typical, which is why we have trouble with them. As has also been demonstrated in Aspie-quiz, Aspies have their own set of non verbal communication that is closely related to stims. We also (usually) don't have problems reading each others. These traits have nothing to do with lack of social trats or being unsiuted for tribal life. The Aspie communication traits where the species-typical mode of communication in Neanderthals. As such they would have allowed Neanderthals to be social beings, just as they allow Aspies to be social beings with other Aspies.



We are not a step down. Neanderthals were a sister-species, and as such was just as advanced as our own species, but with a different competence profile, social life and communication style.



On average, we are not. On average we WERE equally fit as NTs, and were involved in balanced selection. That is before larger social contexts started to appear a few hundred years ago. Right now we must be declining in numbers because of the discrimination we are subjected to.



I don't believe this is the future, but I agree that right now the information highway is to our advantage. There is a real risk it will get less of an advantage when video-conferencing and such becomes the norm.

Umm...no. I don't believe in the idea of a throwback. We can look for parallels in the past, but evolution only goes forward.

No, I don't think that it's necessary to hypothesize interbreeding with the Neanderthals. I don't know where this discussion came from. My idea is more original and far-reaching than that. Rather than caves, these guys would have lived in cool or temperate forests. What I'm trying to get at is that AS could be a runaway adaptative response to certain environmental conditions. It's probably not even limited to humans. It's quite feasible that other species go through this sort of adaptative transformation. The reason that I think so is that different environments are going to have different survival needs. Some are going to favor a relatively solitary existence. Others are going to all but force creatures into groups. Some are going to demand a mind that can think and plan, such as that of a cat who pretends to sleep while watching the movements of a mouse. Others are going to demand a mind that can make snap decisions without vacillation. Environments change. Ice ages and interglacial periods come and go. Every species, if it is going to survive, requires a certain degree of malleability.

Question: do smells carry well or poorly in cold weather? If smells carry poorly in the cold and frost, then sacrificing the olfactory lobe for other senses wouldn't be problematic in a cooler climate. Is there any problem with the consumption of carbohydrates in a cooler climate? Since high cortisol and low serotonin levels induce grazing on carb-rich foods and auties are the opposite, I find the possibility that colder climates don't mix with carbs highly interesting. Maybe one of you is bright enough to tell me.

In any case, making this a conversation about Neanderthals would completely waste the depth of my point. If I wanted to have a conversation about Neanderthals, I'd have started posting in an existing thread on the subject. I was attempting to posit an original idea. If you'd like to take a more critical view of it, God bless you. Please have enough respect for me and for others, however, to try to understand my point before broadcasting your opinion of it. I didn't start the talk about Neanderthals, and I immediately refuted the notion that they were primarily cave-dwellers in my OP. It's self-evident that you vermin aren't even reading my post if you're talking about freaking Neanderthals. The creature I'm referring to would have preferred the life of a trapper, and he'd have avoided running except in occassional sprints in order to preserve resources and to keep himself from getting lost. If necessary, he'd have been able to wander extreme distances without food or water.

If all you're going to read is my alias and the subject, go and bother someone else. If I hear one more word about Neanderthals, I'm going to start popping heads.

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

That skips over my point rather nicely, sir. You have done a wonderful job of leading the discussion, once again, into yammering about an unprovable and quite possibly disproven theory. If you're done trying to turn my point into something that is easy for you to mock and discredit, please read over my posts carefully, and give me your thoughts on them. Learn to read, asshat.

Look, I'm sorry to be hyper-reactive to the Neanderthal thing, but the reason I'm reacting so strongly against it is that I'd like to consider farther-reaching implications. I'd like to consider the possibility that this could appear in completely seperate human populations within only a few generations of environmental stress. I'd like to consider the possibility that there are similar adaptative mechanisms in other species.

If you want people to believe in "your version" of the cave-man theory, you are welcome to collect the evidences and present them here or on a web-page. My objections to your ideas are in this thread, among other things that social & communication differences, which are at the root of ASDs, cannot be adaptive in our species, which basically shoots-down your theory.

1) I'm not the sort of person who has beliefs or set views. I have a highly analytical mind, and I am generally quick to change my slant on things in light of new information.

2) I'm not posing a "new version" to an "old theory." The only reason that I used the word "cave-man" was that there seems to be a remote relationship between the ideas. I actually arrived at my line of thinking independently after analyzing and cross-referencing various data.

We seem to have hyperactive opioid systems, as evidenced by our sensitivity to casomorphins, our low oxytocin levels, and our high dopamine levels. This would be necessary for coping with the discomforts brought on by a physically stressful lifestyle.

Your thinking is too limited. In the case of autism and AS, elevated glutamate levels and low GABA levels seem to be causing damage to the amygdala and several connective pathways via excitoxicity. Without this excitoxicity, the stimulation would result in heightened connectivity. Our social problems are probably the paradoxical effect of having "too much of a good thing." Eat that.

We're not in the business of shooting down ideas. We're in the business of analyzing them. It appears to me that, from the very beginning of your participation in this thread, you had nothing more than an axe to grind. Going into discussions with no other rationale for doing so than pursuing a vendetta is anti-intellectual. It is counter-intuitive to productive discussion. All you wanted to do was walk into the thread, unzip, and urinate on it. What good are you?

As much as this "caveman" theory goes it's all very nice.

One small oversight that seems to be completely lost is that Neanderthalis dissapeared some 25000 years ago. That's twenty five thousand. 25k. A lot of years ago...

Taking the assumption that Sapien Sapien and Neanderthalis DID interbreed (which is still a subject open to debate with plenty of evidence for both arguments), there is still 25k years of breeding outt the neanderthalis contribution to our current situation. 25 thousand years of being a single species, interbreeding accross the continents as Sapien Sapien. Not as anything else other than Sapien.

In that time we have seen the dissapearence of the Suprainiac fossa, the Ocipital bun, the receding forehead, projected midface, broad nose protrusion, flat canial case, receding chin line. And that's just some of the aspects of the skull. I'm not even mentioning the heigh/size difference. Neanderthals averaged 5" tall, had a more barrel chest, and longer collar bones, bowed thigh bones, and had much shorter shin bones.

Of course, while all these physical characteristics were being bred out (if you accept the interbreeding hypothesis) the characteristic of communication and brain type (which was actually 100cc larger than Sapiens) and method of functioning managed to get passed on from generation to generation (surviving all manner of selective influences) to modern times where the only identifiable characteristic passed on is their brain function in a subset of a mental disorder that was only characterised in its more severe form some 80 years ago and in its milder from only 10/15 years ago?

So, simply put, the last remaining Neanderthal population of Gibralta mingled with homo sapiens, and some 1600 generations later, we get autism?

I put forward the hypothesis that Autism is a simple brain disorder.

Read my posts on this topic, please. I'm not positing the Neanderthal theory, you freaking idiot. The only reason that this even entered the discussion was that someone decided that it was a convenient straw man. That's the only reason you're here blathering about neanderthals instead of actually analyzing my own ideas. If you want to shut up about the freaking neanderthals for half a minute, perhaps we can have some productive conversation on the ACTUAL topic of this thread.

It's the fact that you're using the word "simple" that illustrates you lack of thought processes in forming this opinion. It's never simple when we're talking about brain disorders or adaptation. It's a complicated and interwoven subject. It's also highly fascinating, which is why I spend so much time reading about it.