Is Aspergers evolution in action? Vote on TED.com

Post Reply New Topic

Google: autism evolution ted
-----------------------------------------------
Is autism (correction - aspergers) the result of human brains moving to the next step of neural connectivity? Is this evolution in action?

While watching the 60 Minutes show on the remarkable intellect of a young man who was, for a time, treated as autistic, I was struck with the idea that maybe the current epidemic of autism is due to selective breeding. Humans have evolved with a unique brain mass and neural connections that give them an intellect beyond that of other primates. To achieve our brains, there have no doubt been many instances of trial and error where greater intellect was selected for, and mistakes selected against.

Just as two tall people tend to have tall children, intelligent parents can have intelligent children. That intelligence can be considered to be both hard wired as well as acquired. Maybe the children of smart people with complex neural networks possess new nervous connections, pushing the evolution of the brain. The "mistakes" may be children for whom the nervous connections are not fortuitous while the new nervous connections that are good can create a child with a remarkable intellect....much like the profile on 60 Minutes.

Evolution means species are never static...this may be such an example
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone asked a question if aspergers was a form of evolution based upon the data provided regarding our technological prowess and ability to outperform other neurotypicals.

I say yes and I give my responses to classical evolution versus how we make the technologies of this planet and we always think ahead of others =o) and that we ARE tool makers hence people with aspergers are more than exceptional, we may be evolution at play unless if we lose ourselves in our obsessions

If you feel as though we change this world and we make the future bright and filled with our visions of technology, please respond =o) You can just search "autism evolution ted" on Google and add in your views and votes =o)

We are this world and our loves and passion propel humanity forward

Last edited by cloudtap on 19 Jan 2012, 9:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Aspies make tools that advance society. NT's are the foundation upon which rest the advanced societies that support and enable the aspies to make the tools. Can't have one without the other. Like wolves and caribou. Which is so much better than the other that separation wouldn't destroy both?

I agree and it's a blessing and a curse but please, feel free to read above what was said

I love your thinking by the way

i am on one hand reluctant to cast my vote for no, and i dont mean to start beef with this, but darwininian natural selection and science in general happen to be a special interest of mine.

while i 100% support your passion, as i have passions, and 100% support autism pride (based upon my definition of pride, you can find posts of mine which explain such)
and i do not in anyway wish to damper your enthusiasm

but this assertion is a total ludicrous misappropriation of 'evolution' and also a massacre of the scientific method. other than that it is an instance of assertion of chauvinistic autistic superiority. We are different, not better. We can be an important composite part of society, but society needs all the parts, so i see no reason to put one, the one belong to, on a pedestal.

i intend to later 'google' that string of words to see more where you are coming from, but googling something does not equate to scientifically substantiated proof, to say the least.

I need to go do homework instead of being distracted on Wrong Planet, so i will truncate this post, but to see more where i am coming from, consider that your assertion is based on speculatory observation of the modern world. Consider what portion of geological time the modern world occupies. How can you make any observation about the modern world as operating on an evolutionary scale?

Speaking of evolution, I'm fond of the Neanderthal theory, which makes autism more of a throwback than an advancement. It's merely a theory, though, and has plenty of weak spots. I still find it humorous that the only people who don't have Neanderthal DNA are of pure African decent. That should really embarrass racists who think of themselves as the "master race". They're closer to being cavemen then the race they would seek to dehumanize!

His autism didn't go away. He said that he was proud of his autism and that he contributed his intellectual gifts to it.

It was awesome to hear.

Autism is not globally disabling for everyone who has it.

AS and HFA are examples of phenotypic variation, not evolution. No human phenotype is higher or less evolved than any other. There is only greater or lower evolutionary fitness, which is measured in terms of offspring. People with an IQ of 80 manage to procreate just fine, so they will likely be with us for a while to come They are just as evolved as somebody with genius-level IQ.

And if an IQ 80 couple has eight children, their evolutionary fitness is actually greater than that of a genius couple with only one child. To illustrate this point, Leonardo da Vinci didn't have any children for all we know. His great intellect didn't render him more fit than the idiots of his time, who procreated like rabbits while he felt disgusted by the mere idea of sex. Octomom possesses a far greater level of evolutionary fitness than da Vinci did, whose genius genes are sadly no longer with us. Now there's a depressing thought.

What does this mean for aspies and HFAs? Ask yourself, are we more likely to attract a partner and have children than NTs or less likely? I'm not quite sure what the answer is. I think that in past centuries, factors like arranged marriage, predominantly male sexual selection, and the socio-economic pressure put on single women made it easier for high-functioning people on the autism spectrum to leave copies of their genes, which is why we still see ASDs today. Nowadays, we seem to have a harder time propelling our genes into the next generation.

On the other hand, online dating across national and continental borders greatly increases the pool of potential mates for each person, including aspies and HFAs. Plus, modern day medical diagnosis makes it easy to find a partner who shares our unique traits. Still, I can't help the impression that well-socialized NTs have a far easier time finding a partner and procreating. And there is also something else to consider: How great is the chance that two people with AS or HFA will have a child with full-blown, severe autism and zero mating opportunities in later life? Should we even take this risk? Sorry, ignore the last question. I don't want to start an ethical debate. But it is something worth thinking about, imho.

I don't recall anyone saying they disliked your idea.

It *could* be.

From what I have seen, aspies and people with HFA (in most of it's broad forms) have way more potential than NT's (on average). Imagine a world populated entirely by aspies and HFA's, and imagine how much more would get done.

The only thing that keeps me from saying "yes it is evolution" is how difficult a time a lot of us have when dealing with NT's, which limits the chances of us passing along our genes.

Claiming that aspergers is "evolution in action" only demonstrates a misunderstanding of what evolution is on the part of the person making the claim. Every human, NT or AS, is a demonstration of evolution in action, as every human's DNA has experienced random mutation. Evolution has no goal.

That is not to say that I wouldn't prefer a world in which people with AS were the majority.

I was going to post this. We're all equally evolved. The 'next stage' depends on fitness pressures. It's a bit more interesting than the standard evolutionary answer though, as Aspergers arguably confers a special ability to predict future pressures. Very smart autistics could to some extent choose the path of human evolution.

I wouldn't go so far as to say choose, but definitely influence. If Einstein did indeed have some form of Aspergers, his special ability for physics in past, led to the invention of the atom bomb, however if he wasn't part of that chain of events, someone else could have been as well.

At this point in time intelligence may not play much of a role at all as to whether or not someone chooses destruction through the use of nuclear weapons to potentially end the human species as we know it. It be could be almost entirely based on emotion.

Given that aspect of collective intelligence, modern culture and the human species, it provides evidence that culture and technology is not necessarily beneficial to the survival of the species in the long run. One wouldn't really expect it to, in the sense, that it's just another random result of evolution.

Modern technology and culture, makes it more difficult in someways, to choose a beneficial response for adaptation. That's all that really counts, and those that are the least involved with modern technology and culture, may have an easier time adaptating to what is, in a simpler version.

Populations are decreasing in developed countries and increasing moreso, in developing countries.

Currently, an increase in population is understood as not beneficial either, to the survival of the species, so from that single perspective it appears that collective intelligence and modern culture is of benefit to the long term survival of the species, but it is also responsible for overpopulation to begin with.

The only thing one can really depend on is change, none of us on an individual basis can really count on whether or not our choices will lead to positive or negative results, as far as evolution of the species goes.

I think 'choose' would be possible to some extent, though the effects would be hard to predict. I'm pretty sure I could create a production line of Jesuses. Imagine 20 Jesuses in the world at the same time. Obviously a proportion of them would turn out to be Hitlers.

If the world was full of aspies, and NTs were the minority, NTs would still be the most Advantaged group of people.

So using that logic; No.

Maybe if you accept Lamarckian evolution.

(You don't accept Lamarckian evolution).