Could AS traits be useful for solo foraging/hunting?

Post Reply New Topic

Why do you think it's nonsense?

This was something I just dug up from the net, you're right to want to question its reliability.

Have you heard of some better theories?

I'm interested please continue.

Because it is.
Consider the explanation for more autism in males. As a matter of fact males cannot breed without females, so every male who has no one to breed with goes over the 'autism horizon' and takes their autistic alleles with them. Therefore the explanation offered cannot explain why autism effects more males then females. Also the notion about restricted female mobility is just wrong. We know from hunter/gatherer societies that survived to be surveyed in modern times, that pregnant females move with the group.

The whole presumed model of human mobility and migration is obviously wrong. If you migrate across a frozen land-bridge or sail across the oceans, you either take females with you, or that's the end of your alleles. The fact is no human male breeds without a female. The explanation requires there be no or few females to breed with; yet somehow the alleles are passed on in sustainable numbers? Nonsense.

Evidently, many isolated populations survived into modernity to be surveyed by early anthropologists. If the theory were correct, these populations would have been noticeably autistic. They were not.

In fact a major premise of the theory is distance=social isolation. We know that early hunter/gatherer societies were often far more socially integrated than modern urban societies. Social structures of central importance to daily lives, very commonly stretched out over huge ranges, well beyond the limits of individual human wandering.

The notion of lone migrants at the edges of human populations, sans females but somehow breeding anyway, is really very silly.


Actually, probably the best theory I've encountered was recently posted by Danielismyname. It is referred to as the "intense world theory". For best understanding I would advise that the whole report (rather than merely the summary) be read. If you do a forum search, you should be able to find the thread. Another poster (not Danielismyname) supplies a link to the full research paper later in the thread.

Well, I don't know enough to contribute to the rdos / pandd conversation, but I'm fascinated by this thread. I love sneaking around, trying to move quietly, trying to creep up on birds and squirrels without them noticing. Hehe, it's difficult to say that without sounding sinister, I'm a nice guy (and veggie, so no squirrel-on-a-stick for me)! I just find it fun trying to be stealthy. The idea that it might be some kind of shared trait is very interesting, regardless of whether it provides (or might have provid-ed historically) any benefit.

I am notoriously noisy, in voice and movement. Being stealthy is not a group-wide trait of any group I am a member of.

Yes, I've heard and read about the intense world theory.

I agree with it and it would make sense given the intense sensory experiences that many people have reported.

My own world often feels very intense and detailed, but whether that's AS or something else, I can't really be sure. I've been suspected of AS and I'm a female.

What if some females were carriers of the autism genes and weren't so badly effected themselves?

If there were/are indeed female carriers perhaps these carriers could be mated more easily than their male counterparts?

What if female carriers were only affected by the genes in a minor way and AS traits were actually caused by sex linked inheritance?

Could females be "protected" by more severe manifestations of autistic conditions in this way?

Could a female XX chromosome configuration offer more protection from the conditions than a male XY set of chromosomes?

What if autism and AS are under-diagnosed in females because of how females are socialised in our society?

There are still lots of unanswered questions.

A sense I employ seriously when I'm foraging for herbs is my sense of smell.

Every plant has its own smell, especially on a hot summer day.
I use my visual perceptions as confirmation of what I've smelled.

Humans tend to carry some pretty strong smells.
I suppose I could hunt herbs while in a pack of humans,
but they'd have to stay down wind of me if they wanted full hunting benefits of my sense of smell.

As my nickname suggests, Evolutionary Variance. (EvoVari)

I am overly visual and continually judging peoples body language and actions at a distance.

I perceive threats from my enviroment all the time. Not a positive trait in these times, but 200 years or more it would be extremely useful.

I am instinctive and reactive in threatening situations with other males and switch to fight mode.

I believe the lack of empathy emotion would have been invaluable in conflict situations. I do not have any particular sensativity to death or dying people. I would keep fighting if my comrades fell next to me during war engagement.

Interesting thoughts from everyone!

Then I would not be severely autistic. So I guess we can eliminate that as plausible.

This does not make any sense in the context of the theory. How would the females become carriers for the trait unless one of their parents passed it to them. According to the theory, any males with the trait are on the frontiers and unlikely to be breeding, females would not evolve the trait because they are not on the frontier. Are the alleles passed over distance, telephathically to female carriers? Either it is inherited by those with no use for it, whose reproductive prospects are limited accordingly, and therefore would be 'selected out', or it exists in those it is useful to, who evidently (according to the theory) have no females with them and end up on the wrong side of the 'autism horizon'.

There are only two modes of sex-linked inheritance. One relates to the sex chromosomes, but anomalies associated with ASDs have been identified on autosomes. Fragile X is the only condition I know of linked to autism and the X chromosome. We know that fragile X is not an evolutionary asset, but in fact a simple copying error.

The other means is the one referred to in yet another recent theory. Males and females imprint on their gametes (because of competing interests arising from reproductive differences). However there is no evidence that males differentiate in imprinting based on the sex chromosome content of the gamete. Indeed, knowing how gametes are produced, the notion that they could do so, seems implausible.

If they are, then the explanation offered by the theory being discussed, must be wrong.

Only in the instance where recessive effects of the X chromosome were the cause of the condition.


Then the theory under discussion is flawed in trying to explain something that actually is not even true.


Yes, and I strongly doubt that this topo-theory mijiggy offers any worthwhile answers to any of these questions.

I'm starting to have the suspicion that there might be several different kinds of autism each with their own different mechanisms and manifestations.

What if there is more than one genotype associated with spectrum conditions?

The true big picture could be a really complex one.

That's why I'm not eliminating anything for the moment until more research is done and am trying to consider as many ideas as possible.

Perhaps some kinds of "aloofness" are caused by the individual focusing more on the environment than on other people. I like to engage in "lone foraging" and have severe difficulties in initiating and maintaining social contact. I know that this is the case with me, but I appreciate that others experiences may be different/be down to different causes.

Perhaps some of the females were "carriers" and did make it to the "frontiers" and reproduce, but without solid evidence, this can only be an idle speculation.

I appreciate what you're saying and I'm trying to keep an open mind about this.

You raise some very good points about potential flaws in the theory.

Pan, I really want to respect your knowledge and erudition, but it's difficult to do. I'll try to be as respectful as possible. I ask that if you disagree, to avoid insults and flaming.

My critical thinking textbook defines your last statement as a Subjectivist Fallacy, a form of pseudorefutation;

Claim; X is true, counterclaim; X is not true for me, so X must be false. Just because a claim isn't true for you doesn't indicate whether it's false or true.

Moreover, using yourself as an example is a version of Anecdotal Evidence. Stating/claiming that you work with many persons that are atypical and whose behavior tends to not support a claim is also anecdotal evidence. Once again, my text defines anecdotal evidence as a form of pseudoreasoning.

You obviously are intelligent and knowledgeable, but your thinking, according to my collegiate standard text, is full of fallacies.

When you denigrate someone else's claim or argument or hypothesis by labeling them "believers," this is a subtle form of the Ad Hominem attack. You are, without stating it clearly, suggesting that they are not sufficiently objective in their thinking. You are not addressing the argument/claim/hypothesis, you are attacking the person. Whenever I see this fallacy, it immediately suggests to me that there are reasons for failing to address the point. Attacking another person/argument by ASSUMING they lack objectivity is wrong, IMO, and can work both ways. (Pan, one of the primary reasons I abandoned the scholarly world was because I was told by a professor in seminar that I had to dispense with objectivity. DON'T accuse me of not having enough of it. I tossed away a potential career because of this very important ethical position.)

It never occurred to me until I saw an abstract of a paper published online that was critical of Milt Wolpoff, a well-known and influential reasearcher in the field of human origins. Rather than address Wolpoff's claims, the paper simply attacked him, labeling him a crypto-racist, the Ad Hitlerem version of the Ad Hominem form of pseudorefutation. Why was this done? Why did it pass peer review?

Whenever I see this kind of behavior in debate, I instantly assume that it is the other side that is, in fact, the "true believer" and that the reason they are refusing to address the claim, instead leveling the insult/Ad Hominem attack is that they simply have no convincing way to debate the issue. Took awhile, but there may be an answer.

Oddly enough, the latest comprehensive monograph, Prehistoric Europe (edited by Cunliffe, but containing contributions from the most notable paleontologists in the field), spends its entire initial chapter (written by Clive Gamble) dealing with the issue that is pertinent; dispelling myths regarding the nature of early humans in Europe. In gentle terms, the suggestion is that there exists a bias of long standing that consistently refuses to see earlier forms of prehistoric humans in Europe as our precursors simply because they were/still are thought by many to be primitive/brutish/subhuman. This escaped my notice completely simply because I couldn't imagine a researcher in this field not being able to accept new data as it came to light from field studies. And yet . . . bias exists. This is pertinent because I see the OoA II supporters stubbornly refusing to accept new data that does NOT support their viewpoint/interpretation. Do they have this bias? Apparently. Do you? This is not a sarcastic question. I still see it in threads not a month old. OoA II is failing. The hard science was/still is good. The methodology is/was not, and the latest statisical analysis by Templeton has rendered it more than simply questionable, virtually eliminating it as a viable interpretation. ". . . interbreeding not replacement" --this in Nature.

Last month, the Neandertal Code program aired on one of the Ed channels. While we can all agree that tv is not the place to locate revolutionary science, the reality is that these programs are nevertheless presenting the newest significant information. The latest findings are that hybridization is almost certainly the answer to prehistoric human culture in the upper paleolithic. This isn't pseudoscience nor is it wild speculation. It's the latest hypothesis regarding human origins and everything I've read/come across during the past few years states that the OoA II is failing in favor of neadertal hybridization hypotheses (There are several, Leif's/Rdos' is only one of them). My primary problem with the OoA II is that it simply lacks Explanatory Power (this idea is also in the critical thinking text).

The fact is that, purely AMH or hybrid, humans spent the last few hundred thousand years hunting. There is more than ample evidence to support this claim. It is unquestionable. I know of no scientific researcher, text, or theory that would or has claimed otherwise. From illustrations on cave walls to stone artifacts to site bone inventories, the evidence is overwhelming. Prehistoric humans survived by hunting. Large animals and small. For several hundred thousand years; the breadth of the middle and upper paleolithic. Did these incredibly long period of HUNTING CULTURE have a feedback effect on human physiology? As lactose tolerance/cattle domestication did? Without doubt.

The only remaining questions, IMO, are; to what extent, and to what extent are these physiological adaptations still extant in current populations? These two questions, once again, IMO, are directly related to the spectrum and its nature.

The hypothesis that I posit is this; That the spectrum represents two things;

1.) The leftover, UNPERCEIVED problems of cold adapted human/warm adapted human hybridization. Many times I've seen your arguments vs. Leif/Rdos, but in every case, he is there ahead of you. I claim this because I've read his page, as of several years ago. He worked these things out by at least 06, which was the first time I can recall seeing the site and reading. It seems like you haven't read it at all. Have you? (This isn't a sarcastic question.) If so why not? And if you haven't or don't want to, why debate him? IMO, the issue of why dangerous/undesirable traits have remained in the genome and not been excluded is mostly an issue of demographics and culture. I can elaborate if necessary.

2.) The remnant genetic behavioral suite of characters that were created by more than two hundred thousand years of hunting culture. If, as you say, it's no surprise that culture, as an environmental input to evolutionary change, is without question, then the only question is; how much remains, and is the spectrum the "remains" of that hunting suite. If the answer is yes, then the explanatory power is significant, and many unanswered questions are now answerable.

That is my sole agenda--to answer questions. It is selfish, true. These questions are my own, and I simply want the correct answers so that I can better understand human origins. The byproduct of this selfish pursuit is, however, the clarification of the origin of modern humanity for any and all. My goals are rigorously objective in the typical aspie way. I am not a "believer" in anything except for what the evidence points toward. Please keep this in mind when and if you reply.

My Aspie traits would help me hunt because:
I will track something for hours on end.
-I actually will keep on something for a long time, I will perservere for hours on a boring task, and I know I would keep after a deer for miles. I have that 'drive.'

I scan the area around me.
-I do this a lot, it just doesn't feel 'right' unless I have scanned the area around me and the horizon. I tend to be very wary.

I am good at seeing the 'thing that should not be there.'
-This is very good when it comes to hunting and spotting enemies/predators.

I listen, and try to smell the wind.
-I do this too for some reason, I am more like an animal sometimes then a person.

I will eat almost anything. I have almost no qualms about eating many things, so I imagine that this is good at finding new kinds of foods to eat.

I have a good deal of pain tolerance.
-Good if I am hunting and can't get distracted by it while hunting that big dangerous animal.

There are identified causes of autistic states, and autistic states that have been excluded as caused by any of those identified causes. So we know there is more than one etiology. We also know manifestations differ. What the link between causal pathway and manifestation is, is no doubt a complex matter. But in regards to your suspicion, I cannot see how it could be wrong.

I very much expect it is.


I personally would not consider every 'just-so' tale that happens along. In the absence of both a compelling argument supporting a theory, and any relevant insights offered by the theory for either further research or pragmatically improving life-quality and outcomes for afflicted individuals, I really see little point in devoting too much thought when that thought could be utilized considering better evidenced and more pragmatically promising theories.

I'm not sure how that is really relevant. We know that if I practice to be a famous pianist, this does not imbue my off-spring with any musical talent whatsoever. We know that if humans are made painfully and unwillingly aloof, and fail to pick up basic 'species-competencies' as a result, that this is an impairment. To suggest that aloofness is some evolutionary advantage ignores the facts that evolutionary advantage is not about individual survival, it is about reproduction of alleles, in the case of humans, by sexual reproduction.
Being autistic might entail aloofness, but it's not about being aloof. There is a dysfunction in the assimilation of basic core 'species-competencies'. The cause of this is unlikely to be some autistic superiority in conditions likely to frustrate the achievement of sexual reproduction.

There is no evidence that anyone at the 'frontiers' was autistic. The evidence we do have of people in 'frontier' or topographical surface distributing outward of populations (if you prefer) indicates they are no more autistic than the rest of us. Many people living in isolated areas are socially integrated with everyone else in a wide geographic range and can recite the recent family history of everyone living within dozens of miles of them, it's entirely common for urbanites to not know their own neighbour's name.
All evidence we do have indicates against the theory. In all reality, it is culture and the extraordinary human ability to assimilate culture that enables us to exploit so many environmental niches. Arguably the ability to assimilate culture and be social (the competency for social learning and cooperation) that are the cause of humanities success in the areas of migration and niche exploitation.


I also try to keep an open mind.

You raise some very good points about potential flaws in the theory.[/quote]
I think most people at WP raise good points, certainly the posters who post in threads like this have interesting and insightful things to say, obviously yourself included.

Last edited by pandd on 28 Nov 2008, 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Should I infer that's because my knowledge and erudition are lacking? It certainly seems less of a stretch than inferring some vague insult in describing people as believing something they self-identify themselves as believing.

Starting......nnnnnnow!

Actually it is a flippant remark clearly not constituting a serious argument, the latter of which is offered after the following quote. If the most serious objection you have to my 'knowledge and erudition' is the appearance alongside reasoned arguments, of the odd gravity-breaking flippant comment, then I wonder you took the time to post such a lengthy essay.



While the anecdote about your career is very interesting, it does not change the fact that describing someone as believing something they self-identify themselves as believing, is not necessarily an attack, and of the two of us, I'm best placed to judge whether or not that was my intent.


I can only guess, perhaps it appealed to the reviewers, perhaps they felt the topic was sensitive and were too cowardly to take issue with the piece, perhaps both these things, even perhaps in some instances, both simultaneously in the same peer reviewer/s.

I prefer to judge arguments on their own merits rather on the application of some generality about a very commonly indulged in behavior.
I expect everyone has biases, but I do not see that they are involved in views about either rdos or the topo-,majigi theories. I cannot see what possible motivation I have for preferring one theory over another outside of what my sense and understanding indicates.
Is there some reason other than a possible example of bias for the extent of space you are devoting to this subject in this context?

The Out of Africa vs multi-regional debate/controversy is not a new thing.
I'm starting to think you're more interested in this issue than in anything that I've asserted or argued about. Perhaps you should start a thread about it.


I do not know of anyone disputing the details suggested in the paragraph above, I certainly have not done so.

I do not see any compelling reason why these two questions should be directly related to the spectrum and its nature anymore than they are to congenital deafness or blindness and their nature.
Anecdotally, you happened on Leif/rdos's page several years ago, this proves some chronological fact about when my views were formed.
How could I argue with that?


Yes.

I'm confused about why you're offering to explain the retention of deleterious effect causing alleles in the genome to me. Did you read my and rdos's posts? If you haven't or don't want to, why have a debate and pretend it's about them?

What is this hunting suite in the context of autism? Seriously? the pathological cases showing up in clinics?

There are hunter gather societies who have not been exposed to any selective pressures accompanying non hunter gatherer lifestyles, in the mere 10,000 years of since some limited populations first began to adopt non-hunter gather lifeways. Pure hunter gather populations some genetically isolated, continued to exist into modernity. They are not particularly autistic.

What part of this makes sense to you?
Until 10,000 years ago, everyone was a hunter (gatherer) and so had some adaptive 'hunter (gatherer) trait suite', yet, now, even populations who never stopped hunting and gathering, and were genetically isolated from populations who did, have, evolved away from hunter (gatherer) trait suites, (just because....), all in 10,000 little years. Some traits of this hunter suite remain, and that's the autistic spectrum (just because...).
Seriously, what part of that is sounding likely to you? This is not a sarcastic question, because you do strike me as an intelligent man, and although I do not intend to flame or disrespect, that's a theory that is difficult to respect.


I have no interest outside the truth myself.

autistic people would be perfect austronouts for the first mars mission.
becouse the biggest problem (besides recourses) is social contact. they think being around the same group of people for 3 years make you cracy. but autists dont have that problem.

Nonsense, of course. There are equal number of males and females with autistic traits. The difference only lies in diagnostic procedures (and typical male traits in the DSM).

You are right about that.