Homo Aspergerus? Read this article.

Post Reply New Topic

medicine and a lot of things are changing the standards... but NS will never be removed. there is always some random event that not everyone is equipped (or happens) to survive

Actually, yes we are. Humans are a k-selected species, meaning that natural selection no longer operates on us (this is also the case with whales). Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. Therefore, humans are done evolving. We will continue to see some change, however. K-selected species tend to increase in size (especially in America it seems), have progressively longer lifespans, and tend towards lower birthrates (many developed nations especially) as well as having a population at or near the environment's carrying capacity. Modern society has removed all of the environmental stressors which provided the stimulus for natural selection. Evolutionary biology is one of my several interests, and trust me on this, humans are done evolving. We still have some marginal sexual selection which influences who reproduces most, but this is not significant enough to cause any changes in the gene pool.

There is a increase in the population of autistic ppl 1 in 166 born are on the autistic spectrum. If these trends continue maybe we will be the majority in the not too distant future

Agreed, mmaestro. The idea that any organism has finished evolving is as ridiculous as the idea that everything that can be invented has been. There's a story out a U.S. Patent Office Commissioner resigning for that reason about 100 years ago—because he believed there was nothing left to invent. That, fortunately, seems to be an urban legend. See an article about it at www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm. Even if the story were true, however, that Comissioner would have been proved wrong many times since then. I should think that if one dug deeply enough into research and vital statistics records—of any organism, human or otherwise—one could make a case for some evolutionary changes, however small, having taken place over the same period of time.

I agree with this part ,

Humans are usually social creatures and being social is crucial for surviving and for advancing, the more social you are the better .

I describe 'autism' as another version of the brain , like left-handedness (which is a part of neurodiversity too) , left-handed ppl existed during all the known human history and so autism it seems . The reason of this diversity still mysterious but they are most probably genetic-based.




here I disagree .... living beings can't stop evolving . Do you know for example that a big part of our DNA is shaped by viral attacks during million of years ? as long viruses still exist then we ' ll still evolve .

Not saying that we stopped evolving, but it's almost like we're evolving our world around us so we don't have to. We don't need to do as much work and labor to survive with so many modern conveniences, right? O:

wrong. k vs r selection has to do with how much care paretns give to their offspring... which is susually a trade off of little care many offspring (r selection) vs few offspring with lots of care (k selection)

that has nothing to do with evolution... and natural selection is not the only mode of evolution... for example, there is genetic drift, which is completely independant of NS and is based off porability and pop size. sexual selction as you have mentioned as well, is classified diff. than NS.

im not gonna get into the details for the rest of your passage... but you are misunderstanding several key points about K selection and are overgeneralizing.

humans nor anything else are ever done evolving. and our gene pool is conastantly changing... but you need to take some more classes ect on how that happens... you could argue that nothing is changing... given that the genomes of us and even many unvertebrates contain a surprisingly high overlap in genes.

Hm... we've kind of hijacked this thread over an offhand and largely unrelated comment from myself. I've been trying to find where I initially read about the K-selection that lead me to make those prior statements, no luck so far. Though the Wikipedia article on K selection mentions that it promotes stability in a predictable environment. In any case, this will be my last post on this subject, apologies to all who are annoyed at the waste of space.
Genetic drift is negligible in a population of 6 billion+. Yes I am aware of the prophages (viruses) that have incorporated into our genome, those strands of DNA are all inactive. Perhaps I overstated my premise somewhat, but the human gene pool is very stable. We certainly aren't going to see the emergence of a new species out of humans anytime soon, at least not unless something drastically changes. Yes we still have constant changes in the large amounts of inactive "junk" DNA, but not so much in the parts of the genome that are actually expressed. And if a piece of DNA does not influence how we interact with are environment (is not expressed) natural selection can not act on it. As to whether we're still evolving, I suppose you can argue different ways depending on precisely you define evolution. There is some degree of change in our genome, especially the inactive areas, but our various traits (and frequency thereof) do not seem to be changing. And there is no pressure for them to be, as we have created our own environments to suit us rather than adapting to existing ones. I was referring to noticable changes in the form/function/structure of a human. If we go by that definition, we are not evolving. The formal definition refers simply to changes in the gene pool, and that always occurs to some extent, however small. So I must concede that by the formal definition, we are "evolving." But that evolution is not having an effect upon our actual traits. Yes we're taller than we were before, but it's debatable whether that's from genetics or nutrition.
But now I'm done posting on this subject, feel free to PM me if you are like me and have a compulsion to argue every tiny point.

Evolution can be caused by random genetic mutation. Or a trait that is beneficial to survivial may correlate with a neutral or negative trait. It's not a simple as it seems, Mother Nature is a mad scientist.

It just seems to me that you guys are using Asperger's to mask the fact that you guys really suck at socializing. Yes, socializing is very uncomfortable and I'd rather not do it myself, but apparently you guys don't suck so bad to do it online. Perhaps the problem isn't due to your supposed disorders, it's due to being uncomfortable with people or the inability to connect with people with very different tastes from yourselves.

Just a thought.

By focusing on the extreme right tail of the autistic spectrum and counting only those who are exceptional, it might be construed that Asperger's Syndrome is something of a positive. It is true that Aspies can be more creative or at least original in our own way. It is also true that the hours spent in silent contemplation can lead to important break throughs. But how representative are these outstanding individuals? If there is anything this forum demonstrates, it is how frustrating and difficult life can be for the average Aspie. Suicide is all too common. The effort to raise self esteem is sweet, but there are more pressing problems like making sure that Aspies do not end up starving to death because they are unemployed.

I like reading an article that portrays a person with AS as a well-rounded human being rather than some stereotype. We are human beings, not some otherwordly people or monsters with three heads.

I can identify with the portion on poor interview skills. I am not the most sterling performer when it comes to interviews. I don't really see how I can improve much past my current level and become the "perfect" glib individual that people want to promote. I know the practical information, but I lack the "glib quotient (B.S. factor)." Still, I have been told my interview skills have improved markedly from my initial hire at the library in 2002. That I have been working there for five years is itself progress.

Asperger's: A human subspecies, adapted to a specialized environment.

No better, no worse; just more specialized.

We should expect to see more of these subspecies popping up over the next few centuries.

What is meant by specialized? Specialized in what, exactly?

Read the Geek Syndrome, Wired 9.12.
Math
Science
Engineering
Computer Occupations

As the society gets high tech more and more each day our time has come.

Live long and prosper.

I have to disagree with the article. I think that we are betraying one of our best aspie traits by agreeing with it: our thrist to see things past their appearance and look for truth.
I think that the guy is just not happy with whom he is and / or the world he lives in. I don't blame him, but still a fantasy is not reality. Many things can explain the rise on aspergers syndrome. The guy is using his positive aspie traits (good use of language, deep analytical skills) to prove a point that is really unsustanable. Though I have to admit i admire the guy by stating that he admits he may be totally wrong.

I like the world like it is in this respect. Who would sing and move to the tune in those music videos if we were all aspies? Don't you relate to all that emotional expression on TV even though you can't express it yourself as well? I think having that direct connection to your emotions is great, i wish i had it.
I don't like to think of a world where we are all isolated from each other. Even though I appreciate a lot of the time my loneliness, the best moments of my life have been with some people i appreciate.
And I don't think our sense of real happiness comes from better programming skills, or deep analytical skills. It comes from many sources, and i dont this is the biggest source.